V. P. MOHAN KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) WHEN these matters came up for hearing before this court, it was agreed that both the writ petitions can be disposed off finally.

( 2 ) THE facts may be stated with reference to W. P. no. 29902 of1992. The petitioner herein is a holder of a south zone permit for the tourist taxi vehicle no. Ka-06/666 covered by c/c/stage carriage permit no. Tvp. 71 of 1980. This vehicle has a seating capacity of six, i. e. , 5 + 1. When the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was replaced by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it recognised granting permit for vehicle with capacity of 13, i. e. , 12 + 1, which categories of vehicles were described as maxi cab [vide definition 2 (22)]. The petitioner thereupon applied for variation of the condition by replacing the existing taxi with maxi cab. This request was rejected by order no. Sta 1 repl. 12 of 1989-90, dated 23-5-1992 by the Karnataka state transport authority. Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the appellate tribunal, which by order annexure-a, allowed the appeal, permitting the variation by increasing the seating capacity. This order was passed on 27-8-1992.

( 3 ) SINCE the respondent-the Karnataka state transportauthority, who was bound to give effect to annexure-a order, failed to do so, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to implement annexure-a order.

( 4 ) THE writ petition was filed on 7-10-1992. The copy of thewrit petition was served on the respondent on 8-10-1992. It came up for preliminary hearing on 5-2-1993. On that day, the government advocate took notice and the matter was adjourned to 10-2-1993 and again to 18-2-1993. On 18-2-1993, it was adjourned to succeeding week. It was not posted thereafter till 24-8-1993.

( 5 ) ON 23-2-1993, the Karnataka state transport authority,the primary authority who passed the order dated 23-5-1992, referred to above, who is the respondent in W. P. no. 29902 of 1992, as also the State of Karnataka filed W. P. no. 5852 of 1993 impugning annexure-a order, referred to above. It came up for admission on 25-2-1993 and was adjourned to be heard along with W. P. no. 29902 of 1992.

( 6 ) THE short question for consideration is, whether thevariation sought for can be granted. Before adjudicating the question, another ancillary aspect may be adverted to.

( 7 ) THE order challenged in appeal by the petitioner in W. P. no. 29902 of 1992 was passed by the Karnataka state transport authority. The said authority was exercising a quasi-judicial function. If so, it is not known as to how the order annexure-a, which is a decision rendered in the statutory appeal against the order of the said authority can be impugned by the very same authority. The said authority is not "a person aggrieved" and it cannot be shown that it has suffered injustice which ought to be rectified. It can never be said that the said authority has any 'interest' to be safeguarded. If a writ of certiorari is a writ ex debito justitiae which expression is ordinarily understood to mean that one who can show that he suffered injustice and who owed rectification, then the authority who decided a cause can never satisfy the definition of an aggrieved person. Hence, as the 1st petitioner in W. P. no. 5852 of 1993, namely, the Karnataka state transport authority, is not an aggrieved person, he cannot impugn annexure-a order.

( 8 ) THAT apart, as can be seen from the facts set out in thepreceding paragraph, it may not be unreasonable to assume that the challenge to annexure-a order made in W. P. no. 5852 of 1993 is not bona fide. The order was passed on 27-8-1992. The petitioner in W. P. no. 29902 of 1992 filed the writ petition on 7-10-1992. A copy thereof was served on the petitioners in W. P. no. 5852 of 1993 on 8-10-1992. When W. P. no. 29902 of 1992 came up for admission, time was sought on behalf of the respondent twice. It is thereafter W. P. no. 5852 of 1993 was filed. These facts clearly betrays want of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document