ORDER
1. In this case the petitioner had a permanent stage carriage permit for running a bus service on the Basukinath-Bhagalpur route. Under Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act the petitioner applied for the renewal of the said permit. The application for renewal was published in the Bihar Gazette and objection were also invited by the Regional Transport Authority. Nobody filed any objection to the application of renewal made by the petitioner. On the 26th September, 1959, the Regional Authority granted renewal of the permit. On the same date the Regional transport Authority granted renewal of permits in ninety other cases. Out of these ninety cases the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation took the matter in appeal before the State Transport Appellate Authority with regard to forty-one cases, but the important point to notice is that the case of renewal of the petitioner’s permit was not among the forty-one cases taken in appeal by the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation.
In respect of these forty-one applications the State Transport Appellate Authority held that the order of renewal was void as it was passed at a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority which was not legally constituted as the Chairman presiding over the meeting was not a person who has had judicial experience as required by Section 44(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The State Transport Appellate Authority, therefore, remanded the case for disposal to the Regional Transport Authority. Against the order of the Appellate Authority writ petitions were filed in the High Court in thirty-one cases, namely, Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 918 of 1959 and analogous cases. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation also filed writ petitions against these same thirty-one cases, being Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 21 of 1960 and analogous cases, challenging the order of renewal made on the 26th September, 1959, on the allegation that the order of renewal was made by a tribunal which had not heard the objection. Both these sets of writ petitions were heard and judgment delivered by the High Court on the 9th February, 1960. Thereafter the Regional Transport Authority gave notice to the petitioner with regard to his case of renewal. On the 27th February, 1960, the Regional Transport Authority modified its original order of renewal and granted renewal of the petitioner’s permit only for a curtailed route of six miles, namely, from Nonihat to Basukinath.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated the 27th February, 1960, is ultra vires and illegal be-cause there is no power of review vested in the Regional Transport Authority authorising it to review its previous order dated the 26th September, 1959, with regard to the petitioner’s case. In support of this proposition learned Counsel relied upon a decision of this High Court in Ramnath Pd. v. State Transport Appellate Authority, Bihar, AIR 1957 Pat 117, where it has been held that the Regional Transport Authority has no power either to entertain an application for review of his own order or to review his own order, and there is no inherent power in the Regional Transport Authority to review apart from the statute. It was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the case of renewal of the permit of the petitioner was not the subject-matter of decision of the State Transport Appellate Authority in the forty-one appeals or the subject-matter of decision in the writ petitions in the High Court. It was also contended that since no objection was filed to the renewal of the petitioner’s permit, the reasoning of the High Court with regard to the invalidity of the order of the 26th September, 1959, with regard to the renewal of the permits in other cases has no application to the case of renewal of the permit of the petitioner.
3. In our opinion the argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner is well founded. The learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent also did not seriously oppose the application and said that the renewal granted to the petitioner will expiry in April, 1962.
4. For the reasons we have expressed we hold that the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting renewal of the petitioner’s permit for the curtailed route is ultra vires and illegal and that the original order of the Regional Transport Authority dated the 26th September, 1959, with regard to the renewal of the permit o the petitioner must be restored.
5. We accordingly allow this application, set aside the order of the Regional “Transport Authority dated the 27th February, 1960, with it gard to the renewal of the permit of the petitioner for the curtailed route and restore the previous order of the Regional Transport Authority dated the 26th September, 1959, with regard to the renewal of the permit of the petitioner. There will be no order as to costs.