S. D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as under: "the petitioner is the holder or a permanent stage-carriage permit No. 430 on the Basti-Maholi- Vishwanathpur route. This permit was granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Gorakhpur. The permit was valid till 6th March, 1977. " Under Section 58 (2), Proviso (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner has to apply for the renewal of a permit not less than 120 days before the date of its expiry. Renewal of permit was not applied within the period, as provided in the Proviso, but WAS applied on loth November, 1976, three days beyond the period prescribed. The said application for renewal was published, as required under the provisions of Section 57 (3) of the Act, No objection was made against the said applica tion. In the meeting held on 27th May, 1977, the application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority as being belated by three days and the same not being accompanied by the prescribed fee. Against the order of the Regional Transport Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 64 (1) (c) of the Act before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P. Lucknow, The appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal by order dated 31st August, 1977. The order dated 31st August, 1977, as well as the order dated 27th May, 1977, are challenged by means of the present petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. Sri S. K. Dhaon. learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the clause in Section 58 (3) of the Act to the effect that the prescribed fee is to accompany the application was merely directory and not mandatory the view to the contrary, taken by the authorities, is manifestly erroneous. Section 58 (3) of the Act reads: "58 (3 ). Notwithstanding anything contained in the first proviso to sub-section (2), the Regional Transport Authority may entertain an application for the renewal of a permit after the last date specified in the said proviso for the making of such an application, if the application is made not more than fifteen days after the said date, and is accompanied by the prescribed fee. " The important words in Section 58 (3) of the Act, quoted above, which require interpretation, are the words "entertain an application. . . . . . and is accompanied by the prescribed fee". In Lakshmi Ratan Engineering Works v. Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, A. I. R. 1968 S. C. 488, the provisions of U. P. Sales Tax Act came up for consideration. The provision, which prescribed the manner for filing an appeal, was in the following terms: "provided that no appeal against an assessment shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the amount of tax admitted by the appellant to be due or. . . . . . . . . " The words, which were interpreted by the Supreme Court in the above Proviso were "entertained. . . . . . accompanied by satisfactory proof of the pay ment of the amount of tax admitted by the appellant to be due". The word 'entertain' was interpreted to mean "admit to consideration" meaning thereby that the point of time would be when the case is taken up by the Court, for the first time, for consideration and, at that time, the memorandum of appeal should be accompanied by the proof of payment. The Supreme Court held that the rule was merely directory and that proof should be before the Court at the time of the consideration of the appeal. The words in Section 58 (3) of the Act are practically in similar terms to the Proviso of the U. P. Sales Tax Act which came up for consideration before the Supreme Court. The principle laid down, therefore, in the case of Lakshmi Ratna Engineering Works v. Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax (supra) fully applies to the present case. In view of the above decision, in my opinion, the words "is accompanied by the prescribed fee" are directory and the prescribed fee has to be paid before or at the time of the consideration of the application for the renewal of the permit. The view, that the application can only be filed when accompanied by a prescribed fee and that the provisions are mandatory, is contrary to the intention expressed in Section 58 (3) of the Act. The Appel late Tribunal has, therefore, erred, in holding that the rule is mandatory. The only portion of Section 58 (3) of the Act, which, in my opinion, is manda tory, is that if there is any delay in filing the application for renewal, the application cannot be entertained after 15 days from the last date, but if it is filed within 15 days of the last date, the Regional Transport Authority has been given the power to entertain such an application. In para 6 (c) of the petition, it has been categorically stated that the petitioner was prepared to deposit Rs. 10/-, the fee prescribed, in case before the Transport Authority considered the application. In para 7, it has been further stated that the counsel for the petitioner placed Rs. 10/- at the table of the Chairman of the Transport Authority and requested him to accept the same and proceed with the consideration of the application on merits. How ever, the Transport Authority declined to accept the fee of Rs. 10/- and, there after, rejected the application for the renewal on the ground that the manda tory requirement of payment of the prescribed fee having not been complied with at the time of filing of the application, the renewal application was rejected. In the counter affidavit, there is no denial of these averments made in the petition. In the circumstances, the petition is liable to succeed. The orders of the Appellate Tribunal dated 31st August, 1977, and also that of the Regional Transport Authority, Gorakhpur, dated 27th May, 1977, are quashed and the case is remanded to the Regional Transport Authority, Gorakhpur, for consideration of the application of the petitioner for renewal after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to pay the prescribed fee and, thereafter, to consider the application in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. In the circumstances, of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. .;