The R. T. A. has no power to review its own order.

Kanhaiya Singh, J.

1. These two applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution by two different persons arise out of the same order and hence have been heard analogously and will be governed by this judgment. Rameshwar Sinha, the petitioner of M. J. C. 53, and Lalji Prasad Kohli, the petitioner of M. J. C. 57, have both obtained a rule in the High Court calling upon the opposite party to show cause why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued to call up and quash the order dated 29-12-58 of Sri S. M. Ozair Munimi, Minister of Transport, purporting to act under Sec. 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and also a writ in the nature of mandamus prohibiting the opposite party from interfering with the right of the petitioners to ply bus on the disputed route.

2. By an advertisement published in the Bihar Gazette dated 22-2-50 the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as the R. T. A.), which is opposite party 3, invited applications for a permanent stage carriage permit in respect of the route Chapra-Bheldi-Suthiar-Derni, and in pursuance of the same the two petitioners and Dwarka Nath Sharma (opposite party 4) along with others made applications for a permit. Those applications were considered by the R. T. A. on 14/15-12-56, and it decided to grant the said permit to opposite party 4, On the express condition that he would produce a 1956-model bus, with all valid papers, within four months from the date of the order, and in the meantime he was granted a temporary permit for four months to ply on the advertised route the 1949-model bus which was with him (vide Annexure A). It appears that at that time opposite party 4 had only a 1949-model bus and had no intention to substitute a bus of 1956-model for it. Accordingly on 11-1-57 he made an application to the R. T. A. for a permanent permit to ply a 1949-model bus on the said route. This application was considered by the R. T. A. on 27-4-57 when it passed a resolution requiring him to report within 15 days whether he was prepared to produce a 1956-model bus or not with a warning that on his failure to comply with the order other applications received for the routes would be reconsidered for the permanent permit (vide Annexure A1). Even this order, which was peremptory in nature, was not complied with, and on 21-5-57 opposite party 4 presented another application praying that he should be granted a permanent permit to ply his 1949 model vehicle instead of a new vehicle of 1956-model. This time, it appears, he succeeded. In a resolution dated 1-6-57 the R. T. A. granted him a permanent permit for three years for his, existing 1949-model vehicle instead of a new vehicle of 1956-model. It will be observed that the effect of this order is that the R. T. A. reviewed its initial order dated 14th/15th December, 1956, subsequently confirming it on 27-4-57. Against this order Lalji Pd. Kohli, the petitioner in M. J. C. 57, preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Authority (opposite party 2).

This appeal was heard on 30-4-58 and 1-5-58, and by an order dated 6-5-58 (Annexure B) it set aside the order of the R. T. A. dated 1-6-57 on the ground that it was wholly without jurisdiction and ab initio void and directed the R.T.A. to reconsider the applications, excluding the application of opposite party 4, and select the most suitable candidate tor the permit. In compliance with the aforesaid directions the R. T. A. considered the remaining applications, and by its order dated 7th/8th September, 1958, decided to give the permanent permit to Rameshwar Sinha, the petitioner in M. J. C. 53, who in his opinion, was most fitted for the permit and offered to ply on the advertised route a vehicle of the latest model (vide Annexure C). Pursuant to the said order Rameshwar Sinha produced a brand new 1958-model bus bearing No. BRD 917 and was granted a permanent permit, valid up to 21-12-61.

He started running the said service on the