JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17.07.2023, vide which, the writ petition preferred by the appellant-petitioner challenging the grant of extension to the private respondents from Soorajbera to Saidham (Bhooriberi) vide order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the Member, Regional Transport Authority has been dismissed. 2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant with reference to the order dated 26.05.2022 (Annex.5) that the competent authority while passing the said order has not fulfilled the mandate of Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and proviso thereto, where it is clearly mentioned that any such variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof. Learned counsel states that a perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that it does not fulfill the mandate of this statutory provision and, therefore, the said order cannot sustain. He on this basis asserts that the impugned order dated 26.05.2022 (Annex.5) deserves to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the private respondents as well as the counsel for the State could not point out any such satisfaction or the aspect of there being public convenience and public interest involved in granting such extension, merely the arguments have been recorded and an order has been passed rejecting the diversion and accepting the extension. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents as well as the counsel for the State have made a valiant effort to try and satisfy the Court with reference to the other reports which have been submitted by the authorities to contend that there is satisfaction of the competent authority and thereafter only, the decision has been taken by the competent authority on going through the said reports. Prayer has, thus, been made for upholding the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismissing the appeal. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the pleadings and the documents available on record including the impugned order. 6. Prayer has, thus, been made for upholding the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismissing the appeal. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the pleadings and the documents available on record including the impugned order. 6. Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the proviso reads as follows: “Section 80(3) in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (3) An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit: Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route to increase the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vehicles: Provided further that: (i) in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty-four kilometers. (ii) in the case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres from the termini, and any such variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof.” 7. A perusal of the above provision would make it clear that the competent authority was required to record its satisfaction with reference to such variation/extension, which is sought to be made by observing that it would serve the convenience of the public. Another requirement is that it was not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof. 8. Another requirement is that it was not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof. 8. These requirements of the statute having not been complied with in the impugned order dated 26.05.2022 (Annex.5), where merely the arguments of the parties have been referred to and no satisfaction, whatsoever, or reasons assigned for accepting one proposal and rejecting the other. Having not been complied with the mandate of the statute, the said order cannot sustain. 9. We refrain ourselves from further going into the merits of the case or the other submissions which have been made by the counsel for the parties for the simple reason that the matter is required to be remanded back to the competent authority i.e. the Member, Regional Transport Authority for considering the matter afresh and passing a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The said decision on such remand be taken within a period of four weeks from today. 10. It is made clear that the order dated 26.05.2022, qua the private respondents, would operate only for a period of four weeks and not beyond that period. 11. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.