- (1.) IN this and in the connected writ petitions a common question arises on similar facts and hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) IN this writ petition there are four petitioners. The facts of the cases of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 Chandradhan Singh and Bhagwati Prasad are identical while the facts of the cases of the remaining two petitioners Vinod Kumar Goel and Sobbnath Singh are slightly different. The petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 shall hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners first set and the petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 shall be referred to as the petitioners second set. Dealing with the cases of the petitioners first set, it appears that the Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as the R. T. A.) in its meeting held on 17/21 September, 1973 decided to grant mini-bus (contract carriage) permits for Varanasi Region. It decided to grant 10 permits for Varanasi district and 5 contract carriage permits for each of the four districts, viz. Mirzapur, Ghazipur, Ballia and Jaunpur. In its meeting held on 23rd April, 1975 the R. T. A. granted permits to certain applicants who had already minibuses in their possession. As such applicants were not sufficient in number, the full quota of the permits was not exhausted. After that meeting the petitioners applied for the grant of temporary mini bus (contract carriage) permits on 17th June and 28th June, 1975. They in their applications mentioned the chassis number, the engine number and the model of the mini-buses, which they had arranged to purchase. Two temporary permits were granted to them for Varanasi Region from Ghazipur Centre of operation. Later on 9th July, 1975 the petitioners were asked to produce valid documents of vehicles registration in their names so that the necessary permits should be issued to them. Before, however, the documents could be produced the R. T. A. in its meeting held on 6th August, 1975 considered the policy regarding the issue of contract carriage permits for mini-buses and resolved that no further permits should be granted to any one. The petitioners thereafter submitted the documents in respect of the vehicles registered in their names but because of the resolution passed by the R. T. A. on 6th August, 1975 the permits were not issued to them. The petitioners are aggrieved and have prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue necessary permits to them. They have also prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the resolution passed by the R. T. A. on 6th August, 1975.
(3.) NOW it is not disputed that temporary permits had been granted to the petitioners. This is clear from the letter of the R. T. A. dated 9th July, 1975 issued to the petitioner No. 1 Chandra Dhan Singh, which is in the following words:- "Please refer to your application dated 13-6-1975 in connection with issue of temporary mini-bus permit for 4 months. In this connection you are hereby informed that a temporary permit for 4 months has been sanctioned to you as such you are hereby directed to produce the documents of the vehicle duly registered in your name so that permit be issued accordingly." What remained was only the formal issuance of a permit and that could be done only on the production by the petitioners of the relevant documents with regard to the mini-bus vehicles duly registered in their names. No time limit was fixed for the production of the documents. The petitioners have stated that in pursuance of the sanction of permits in their favour they have purchased mini-buses from TATA Mercedez Benz costing them over a lac of rupees each including the bus bodies constructed on the chasis. It has been further stated by them that on or about August 25, 1975 the petitioners approached the Secretary, R. T. A. for the issue of temporary permits to them but the Secretary gave an evasive reply and kept on postponing the issue, without issuing the permits or giving a reply in writing. These averments have not been denied. What is stated in the counter-affidavit is that because of the resolution passed by the R. T. A. placing a ban on the issue of permits, no permits could be issued to them. In my opinion, the stand taken by the respondents is highly unreasonable and illegal. The permits had already been sanctioned in favour of the petitioners and what was left was only the ministerial act of issuing the permits. Therefore, the case of the petitioners would not be covered by the policy resolution passed by the R. T. A. on 6th August, 1975, banning the grant of further permits. So far as the petitioners are concerned, the permits had already been granted to them and the order granting permit had not been cancelled. Indeed, an order cancelling the permits could not be passed because that would amount to review of the order, which power the R. T. A. did not possess. It is well settled that the R. T. A. in the matter of grant of permits exercises judicial powers and a judicial order once passed cannot be reviewed unless there is specific power in that behalf. The ban imposed by the R. T. A. was on the grant of permits and not on the issue of permits already granted. The Supreme Court in Kundur Rudrappa v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, (AIR 1975 SC 1805) has observed in paragraph 5:- "Issuance of the permit is only a ministerial act necessarily following the grant of the permit." The R. T. A. having already granted the permit could not withhold the issuance of permit because of the policy resolution of 6th August, 1975.;