Wanchoo, C. J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Bhopalchand Mehta against the State Transport Authority and others and arises in the following circumstances - The applicant was plying a stage carriage on the Koselao-Bali route from 1951. In October, 1952 he applied for the grant of a permit on Koselao-Bali route and a permit was granted to him for three years for that route from the 1st of January' 1953. , to the 31st of December, 1955. The dispute seems to have arisen as to the route to be followed between Koselao and Bali. The applicant contended that railway station, Rani was included in his route. Other bus-owners who were apparently interested in the trafic at the Rani railway station contended that it was not so. THIS matter was considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, and it ordered in April, 1954, that Rani was not included in this route and that the applicant's bus should not ply up to Rani. Thereupon, there was an appeal by the applicant to the Appellate Authority under sec. 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act. That appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority on the 4th of March, 1955, and it was ordered that the applicant be allowed to ply his bus via Rani on the Koselao-Bali route. Then there was a review application before the Appellate Authority by opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4. THIS review application was accepted on the 14th of February, 1956, and the order of the Regional Transport Authority, which excluded Rani from this route, was in effect restored. It may be mentio-ned that the permit about which all this dispute arose had expired on the 31st of December, 1955. But as the Appellate Authority had not decided the matter a temporary permit was granted to the applicant for three months up to the end of March, 1956. The present application was made on the 3rd of March, 1956, when that temporary permit was in force.
(2.) THE main contention of the applicant before us is that the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to review its order passed in appeal under sec. 64 and the order of 14th of February, 1956, is of no force and effect and the order passed in March, 1955, stands. It has not been disputed before us that an appellate Authority dealing with an appeal under sec. 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act has no power left, after it has decided the appeal, to review its own order. In this connection, it is enough to refer to Nathulal vs. Collector, Sawai Jaipur (l) in which this Court held that review was a creature of statute and if no power to review was given, a final order passed by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority could not be reviewed by it. It is enough to say that the Appellate Authority is a quasi-judicial authority and has no power to review the order it passes after bearing an appeal under sec. 64 of the Acts To that extent, therefore, the order of the 14th of February, 1956, was certainly not within the power of the Appellate Authority. As a matter of fact, we have not been able to understand why the Appellate Authority thought it necessary in Feburary,1956, to decide a dispute, whether it had power to do so or not, with respect to a permit which had expired on the 31st of December, 1955. We should have thought that the Appellate Authority, even if it had power to do so, should have said that the permit had expired and. therefore, the parties should go to the Regional Transport Authority for getting a proper route fixed on the new permit which would have to be issued in 1956. The question, therefore, is as to what order we should pass in this writ petition. What we have just said with respect to the proper order which the Appellate Authority should have passed in February, 1956, about the permit which finished on the 31st of December, 1955, applies with full force to what we should do. At the best we are dealing with a temporary permit which finished on the 31st of March, 1956. We understand that a regular permit has since been granted. That regular permit is not the subject of dispute before us. It is not for us to say, therefore, whether the Regional Transport Authority in granting a regular permit and fixing some route depending upon the order of the Appellate Authority dated the 14th of February, 1956, was wrong or otherwise. The present application must however be dismissed as the temporary permit which was in force in March, 1956, when it was made has since expired and the regular permit which has since been granted is not attacked in this case. We, therefore, dismiss it, but in the circumstances pass no order as to costs. .;