WP(C) 602/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI I have heard Mr A Roshid, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr BJ Talukdar, the learned GA, appearing for the State respondents and Mr U Rajba nshi, the learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department. The facts of the case, in short, are that the petitioner is running a bu siness of Weigh and Measurement under the name and style of M/s Mehegh Weigh Bri dge at Nokma Kundi, Damra, PS-Dudhnoi, District, Goalpara. In the year 2007, th e District Transport Officer, Goalpara has issued a trade licence to him for ins talling of weighing device at Damra with effect from 12.04.2007 vide trade licen ce at Annexure 3. The period of the licence commenced from 12.04.2007 and was t o expire on 11.04.2008. Since then, he started operating the weighing device ti ll expiry of the trade licence. The trade licence was issued by the District Tr ansport Officer, Goalpara District on the basis of the permission duly granted b y the Commissioner of Transport, Govt. of Assam who is also functioning as the R egional Transport Officer, Assam. According to the petitioner, after expiry of the trade licence, he approached the respondent authorities for renewal of his l icence after duly obtaining the certificate of the Inspector of Weights and Meas ures under Rule 92(1) of the Assam Motor Vehicle Rules, 2003 .The application fo r renewal is at Annexure 9 bearing dated 26.04.2010. Till now, his licence has not been renewed. Mr U Rajbanshi, the learned Standing Counsel for the Transport Departmen t, drawing my attention to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent N o. 4 submits that the trade licence was issued to the petitioner without taking the approval of the Regional Transport Authority as the then District Transport Officer was not well verse and aware of the provision of Rule 92 of the Assam Mo tor Vehicle Rules, 2003 and as such the application of the petitioner which was never approved by the Regional Transport Authority at the initial stage was in c ontravention of the Rule 92(1) of the Assam Motor Vehicle Rules, 2003 which can not be renewed. He, therefore, strongly urges this Court to dismiss the writ pe tition. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that t he trade licence was obtained from the District Transport Officer, Goal Para aft er duly obtaining the permission of the Regional Transport Authority as evident from the letter dated 11.04.2007 addressed to the District Transport Officer, Go alpara by the Commissioner of Transport, Assam, who is also functioning as the R egional Transport Authority, Assam. In the face of Annexure 2, I am of the opin ion that the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4 d oes not hold water. Therefore, there is no contravention of Rule 92(1) of the A ssam Motor Vehicle Rules, 2003. Under the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents No. 1 and 4 to consider the application of the petitioner and ta ke a decision thereon in accordance with law within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of this order.