The court emphasized the limited scope for review and the importance of challenging decisions before the appropriate appellate forum.

The present Review Application has been filed for reviewing the judgment dated 30.4.2003 in W.P.No.36675 of 2002, whereunder the writ petition filed by the present petitioner was dismissed.

2. Since the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has made submissions in elaborate manner, it is necessary to notice the relevant facts in some detail.

3. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Regional Transport Authority for grant of a stage carriage permit on the route Kangayam to Kodumudi to ply an additional bus, 12 applicants including the petitioner had filed applications. One of the existing operators had filed W.P.No.5289 of 1994, wherein an interim order was passed to the effect that the applications may be considered but the final decision should not be implemented till the disposal of the writ petition. The Regional Transport Authority, hereinafter referred to as "the RTA" at that stage, decided to grant permit in favour of Thirumalai Transport Service. Ultimately, W.P.No.5289 of 1994 was dismissed with a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to give effect to the decision dated 5. 1984. The present petitioner had applied for a copy of the proceedings. The decision of the RTA dated 5. 1984 had been put on hold and the RTA fixed date on 212. 1986 for personal hearing. W.P.No.13710 of 1986 (erroneously typed as W.P.No.13719 of 1986 in the judgment in the writ petition) was filed by the Thirumalai Transport Service, wherein a direction was issued to the RTA vide order dated 30.11.1993 to issue permit and after initiation of Contempt Appln.No.75 of 1994, a temporary permit was issued on 5. 1994 and after convening a timing conference, pucca permit was issued on 6. 1994. The petitioner filed W.A.No.1048 of 1995 and Cheran Transport Corporation Limited filed W.A.No.1049 of 1995 against the order dated 30.11.1993 in W.P.No.13710 of 1986. Since the certified copy had not been granted to the present petitioner, he had filed W.P.No.13688 of 1994 for issuing a direction to the RTA to issue certified copy of the proceedings relating to grant of permit in favour of Thirumalai Transport Service. By judgment dated 26. 1996, both the writ appeals were allowed and it was held that the proceedings of the RTA were nullity.

4. As a result of such decision, the Stage Carriage Permit, which had been issued in favour of Thirumalai Transport Service stood withdrawn. W.P.No.13688 of 1994 filed by the petitioner for grant of certified copy was dismissed with the following observation: -

" . . . In the light of the judgment rendered today in W.A.Nos.1048 and 1049 of 1995 holding that the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority in question issuing the permit is a nullity, the prayer made in the writ petition does not survive. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. . ."

5. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed a representation to the RTA to consider and pass orders on the remaining applications but, since the representation remained unheeded, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18703 of 1998. The High Court by its order dated 30.11.1998 issued a direction to the RTA to consider such application. The RTA passed an order to the following effect: -

" . . . all the other applications stood rejected. Of course, the orders of the High Court by the single judge were set aside by the High Court in Writ appeal. But when the Regional Transport Authority announced the grant of permit and when the permit was actually issued to applicant, the applications of others stood rejected.

There is no question of reconsideration of the balance applications.

The petitioner is, therefore, informed that the Regional Transport Authority has nothing to proceed and to issue any order in the matter."

Such order was communicated to the petitioner by memo dated 24. 1999. The petitioner filed Appeal No.311 of 1999, which was disposed of by the Appellate Authority, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, by order dated 24. 2002, wherein it was