- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) There was no order passed or action pursued in terms of Rule 155-A(6) of the Motor Vehicles Rules which envisages that the authority is required to draw up the proceedings to consider the merits and demerits of the applications and to give reason for grant of the permit. The Division Bench of the High Court has pointed out in the impugned judgment 28th June, 1996 that since no reasons were recorded in the proceedings purported to have been held on 9th May, 1984, order dated August 1, 1984 passed by the Regional Development Authority the grant of permit was not valid and being a nullity it is non est. The High Court has observed as under:- "We have pointed out that records do not contain any proceedings or any reasons except the order as notified which has already been extracted. There is no disagreement between the parties regarding non-existence of the proceedings containing reasons for selecting the first respondent and rejecting the other applications". ;