ORDER Shantanu Kemkar, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 21.2.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 979/2013. 2. At the outset, it has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners that the order impugned in writ petition regarding grant of temporary permit for the route Rampura to Ujjain and the temporary permit granted in pursuance of the said grant have been set aside by the Writ Court with an observation that in case fresh temporary permit is granted by the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority (for short, RTA), the same Authority who is granting a temporary permit shall decide the objections of the objectors, while passing the order in the matter of grant of temporary permit. According to him, he is satisfied with the said part of the order. 3. However, subsisting grievance of the appellants is that the Writ Court, while disposing of the writ petition, has upheld the notification dated 17.10.1994 delegating powers to the Secretary holding it to be in consonance with the statutory powers contained in section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the M.V. Act, 1988) and Rule 67 of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (for short, the Rules of 1994). He submits that this finding is contrary to the provision of law. As according to him, delegation of powers by the RTA vide order dated 17.10.1994 is contrary to the provisions of the M.V. Act, 1988 and the Rules of 1994. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on this question. 5. In order to decide the controversy raised, it would be appropriate to quote the relevant provision of the M.V. Act, 1988. Section 68 (5) of which provides power of delegation reads thus:- “68. Transport Authorities.- (5) The State Transport Authority and any Regional Transport Authority, if authorized in this behalf by rules made under section 96, may delegate such of its powers and functions to such authority or person subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be prescribed by the said rules.” 6. Rule 67 (1) (f) of the Rule of 1994 provides for delegation of powers by RTA by a general or special resolution to Chairman, Secretary, Additional Secretary or Assistant Secretary of the Authority. Rule 67 (1) (f) of the Rule of 1994 provides for delegation of powers by RTA by a general or special resolution to Chairman, Secretary, Additional Secretary or Assistant Secretary of the Authority. Rule 67 (1) (f) which is relevant for deciding the controversy about delegation in regard to temporary permit reads thus:- “67. Delegation of powers by Regional Transport Authority.- (1) A Regional Transport Authority may, by general or special resolution recorded in its proceedings and subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions, as may be specified, delegate to Chairman, Secretary, Additional Secretary, or Assistant Secretary of the Authority all or any of the following powers, namely:- (f) to grant or refuse to grant a temporary permit under section 87 or under sub-sections (7) and (8) of section 88, as the case may be.” 7. In exercise of powers conferred upon the RTA under the aforesaid Rule 67 (1) (f) of the Rules, RTA delegated the powers regarding temporary permit vide order dated 17.10.1994. Relevant Clause (i) of the same reads thus:- ^^fo”k; %& {ks=h; ifjogu izkf/kdkj }kjk ‘kfDr;ksa dk izR;k;kstuA ¼,d½ {ks=h; ifjogu izkf/kdkj }kjk Loh—r fd, x, eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e 1988 dh /kkjk 86 ¼1&lh½ ds varxZr vLFkkbZ ijfeVksa dks vkxkeh vof/k ds fy, fujUrjrk cuk;s j[kus gsrq lfpo }kjk Loh—r dj tkjh fd;k tk,xkA** 8. A plain reading of the aforesaid Clause (i) of the order of delegation dated 17.10.1994 demonstrates that the RTA has delegated to the Secretary the power to grant the temporary permit in order to maintain the continuity of the temporary permit, initially granted by the RTA under section 87 (1) (c) of the Act. 9. In our considered view, Rule 67 (1) (f) of the Rules of 1994, which empowers delegation of powers by RTA does not empower delegation of powers by the RTA in the manner in which it has been done. Such a delegation also appears to be contrary to the spirit of section 87 of the Act of 1988. The powers to grant or refuse to grant a temporary permit under section 87 or under sub-sections (7) (8) of section 88 of the Act, as the case may be, can absolutely be delegated to the Secretary but cannot be delegated in the manner in which it has been done. 10. The powers to grant or refuse to grant a temporary permit under section 87 or under sub-sections (7) (8) of section 88 of the Act, as the case may be, can absolutely be delegated to the Secretary but cannot be delegated in the manner in which it has been done. 10. In view of the aforesaid, in our considered view, the order of delegation dated 17.10.1994 being not in consonance with Rule 67 (1) (f) of the Rules of 1994, the same cannot be sustained, and as such, is hereby quashed. However, the RTA shall be free to pass a fresh order of delegation in conformity with the provision contained in Rule 67 (1) (f) of the Rules of 1994. 11. With the aforesaid modification in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ appeal is disposed of.