BHANDARI, J.—These two writ petitions have been filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution and as some common questions of law and fact are involved in them, both of them are disposed of by this judgment. 2. We first take up Writ Petition No. 255 of 1962, Bhagsingh Vs. The Trans-port Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan & others. 3. In order to appreciate the points involved in this case, we may first refer to the following facts which are either admitted or are not disputed. All the four petitioners in the Writ Petition are plying their buses on what is known as Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route. Besides them, there are a member of other persons plying their buses on the said route. Petitioner No. 1 Bhagsingh is also said to be President of the Union of which the operators of the said route are the members. Of the respondents in this Writ Petition, Respondent No. 1 is the Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan. Respondent No. 2 is the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region. Respondents Nos. 3 to 18 and 27 were at one time plying their buses on the Jaipur-Ajmer route. These persons will hereinafter be called the operators of Jaipur-Ajmer route. Respondents Nos. 19 to 26 were at one time plying their buses on the Jaipur-Kishangarh route and they shall hereinafter be called the operators of Jaipur-Kishangarh route. It may also be mentioned that there were some other persons also plying their buses on the Jaipur-Ajmer and Jaipur-Kishangarh routes. A draft scheme was finalised in September 1960 for nationalisation of the Jaipur-Ajmer route. Objections to the draft scheme were taken by some of the operators of Jaipur-Ajmer and Jaipur-Kishangarh routes. The draft scheme came up for consideration before the Legal Remembrancer, Rajasthan State, who was the competent authority appointed by the State Government to hear objections. The said officer approved the draft scheme by his order dated December 7, 1960. The draft scheme was then published on December 12, 1960. One of the operators of Jaipur-Ajmer route Malik Ram filed a Writ application in this Court for queshing the order of the Legal Remembrancer dated December 7, 1960. His Writ petition was summarily dismissed. The said officer approved the draft scheme by his order dated December 7, 1960. The draft scheme was then published on December 12, 1960. One of the operators of Jaipur-Ajmer route Malik Ram filed a Writ application in this Court for queshing the order of the Legal Remembrancer dated December 7, 1960. His Writ petition was summarily dismissed. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the order of the Legal Remembrancer approving the scheme was set aside and it was directed that the draft scheme be reconsidered by the said officer or such other officer as the State Government may appoint hereafter. The judgment of the Supreme Court is dated 15.4.61. The draft scheme then came up for consideration before the Legal Remembrancer and was finalised on 13.11.1960 and was eventually published on 27.11.1961. Even before the finalisation of the scheme by the Legal Remembrancer, the operators of the Jaipur-Ajmer and Jaipur-Kishangarh routes had applied for grant of permits for Jaipur-Loharu route before Respondent No. 2. Their applications were published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 24.8.1961 and 30.8.1961. Objections were raised by the operators of Jaipur-Sikar route to the grant of permits for Jaipur-Loharu route. These applications and objections were considered and decided by Respondent No. 2 by Resolution No.355 (No 22/1961) passed by the Regional Transport Authority in their meeting held on 16-17.10.1961, at Jaipur. This resolution is Ex.3 on record. It was resolved that non-temporary permits for a period of three years be granted to each of Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 on the condition that they will surrender their existing permits for cancellation within a period of one month from the date of the resolution. Here it may be mentioned that in the meeting held on 16/17.10.1961 the Chairman of the said Regional Transport Authority and the two other members attended. At that time, there was one another member, Shri Bhatnagar, who was not present in that meeting. Under Rule 77 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951 (hereinafter called "the Rules) framed by the State of Rajasthan by virtue of the powers conferred on it by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act), the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region was constituted. The constitution of that body was altered from time to time. On the material time on 15/16.10.1961 this body was composed of four members. The constitution of that body was altered from time to time. On the material time on 15/16.10.1961 this body was composed of four members. The provision about quorum is contained in Rule 77(c) which laid down that the number of members to constitute quorum should be four. This provision was made when the number of members constituting the Regional Transport Authority was more than four but even when the number was reduced to four this provision remained un-altered, with the result that it is contended before us that on the relevant date, all the members constituting the body were bound to sit and decide the matter. It may also be mentioned that an amendment to sub-rule (c) of Rule 77 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 23.11.1961 substituting the word three for the word four. The notification is dated 21.9.1961. 4. After passing of the resolution (Ex. 3), applications were made by 24 operators of Jaipur-Kishangarh and Jaipur-Ajmer routes for extension of time of one month. These applications were considered by Respondent No. 2 in the meeting held on 26/27.12.1961 at Jaipur and by Resolution No. 454 of 1961, it was resolved to grant extension of time for three months to the applicants. The petitioners to this Writ petition filed an appeal against the resolution of Respondent No. 2 dated 16/17.10.1961 (Ex. 3) before Respondent No. 1. It appears that the appeal was filed before the date of the resolution of Ex. 4. This appeal was, however, disposed of by Respondent No. 1 on 4.4.1962 and Respondent No. 1 considered Ex. 4 also in its order. The appeal was dismissed by order (Ex. 5). 5. At this stage, it will be proper to refer to the directions issued by the State Transport Authority constituted by the State Government under sec. 44 of the Act, as these directions find mention in Exhibits 3 and 5. These directions were issued under sec. 44(3) of the Act by the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan. The first direction is dated 25th January, 1961 and runs as follows— Direction under sec. 44(3)—In exercise of the powers conferred under sec. 44 of the Act, as these directions find mention in Exhibits 3 and 5. These directions were issued under sec. 44(3) of the Act by the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan. The first direction is dated 25th January, 1961 and runs as follows— Direction under sec. 44(3)—In exercise of the powers conferred under sec. 44(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, Jaipur, hereby directs all the Regional Transport Authorities in Rajasthan to desist from granting fresh stage carriage permits on any route in their respective region and furnish lists of routes (within a period of two weeks) where there is scope for more fresh permits to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur who has to offer alternative routes to displaced operators in view of the Nationalisation of a number of routes in the said region and this direction shall continue to operate till all the displaced persons in Jaipur Region in due process of law have been rehabilitated. The second direction is dated 19.7.1961 and it runs, as follows: — "On representation by some of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authorities the above matter was put up for reconsideration of the State Transport Authority on 1.7.1961. The S.T.A. has now ordered that the ban imposed be withdrawn in respect of B and C Class routes. It has further been clarified that these restrictions apply only to fresh permits and not for cases of renewals. The resolution of the S. T. A. will be sent to you in due course of time. 6. Writ Petition No. 255 of 1962 has been filed by the petitioners praying for a Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the Transport Authority dated April 4, 1962 (Ex.5) and of the Regional Transport Authority dated 16/17-10 1961 (Ex.3). The petitioners have also prayed that by a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Direction, Respondent No. 2 be directed to publish and consider the applications of the petitioners and the other existing operators of Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route for the grant of permits for Jaipur Pilani route which they had filed even before Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 had made their application for grant of permits for the Jaipur-Loharu route. 7. Some of the facts alleged by the petitioners are not admitted by the Respondent as put forward by the petitioners. 3 to 27 had made their application for grant of permits for the Jaipur-Loharu route. 7. Some of the facts alleged by the petitioners are not admitted by the Respondent as put forward by the petitioners. These allegations relate to the operators of the Jaipur-Ajmer route. The operators of the Jaipur-Ajmer route had been granted permit by Respondent No. 2 by Resolution No. 380, dated 16/17.12.1958. These permits were valid for three years. There were a number of appeals filed against the grant of permits to the operators of the Jaipur-Ajmer route and other operators. The Transport Appellate Tribunal decided the appeal and set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 16/17.12.1958 and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The Jaipur-Ajmer operators filed a Writ petition in this Court and this Court by the interim order dated 7.6.61 stayed the operation of the order passed by the Transport Appellate Tribunal. When the order (Ex. 5) was passed by Respondent No. 1, the Writ petition was pending in this Court, but later on this Writ petition was withdrawn when the operators in that Writ petition had obtained permit for the Jaipur-Loharu route. The position taken by the petitioners in this Writ petition is that the operators of Jaipur-Ajmer route had no valid subsisting permits when they were granted permits on the Jaipur-Loharu route on the basis that they were displaced operators of Ajmer-Jaipur route. 8. In this Writ petition, the petitioners have taken up several grounds in support of their Writ petition. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners, however, summarised them in the following manner :— (1) That the resolution dated 16/17.10.1961 (Ex.3) of Respondent No. 2 was invalid as it was passed by only three members, while for the proper constitution of Respondent No. 2, the quorum of four was required under sub-rule (c) of R. 77. (2) That the Jaipur-Loharu route was merely an extension of Jaipur-Pilani route by only 14 miles and several applications for grant of permits on that route including that of the petitioners, had not been published by Respondent No. 2 on the ground that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal had instructed the Regional Transport Authority not to issue any permit to any person for Jaipur-Pilani route, yet new permits have been granted to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 for Jaipur-Loharu route contrary to the instructions of the State Transport Authority. (3) That the ground on which Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 had been granted permits was that they were displaced operators while they were not so for the following reasons :— (a) That the permits of Jaipur-Ajmer operators were cancelled by the Transport Appellate Authority on 29.5.1961 and they were not holding any valid permits on the day permits were granted to them on Jaipur-Loharu route; (b) That on 16/17.10.1961, the draft scheme for nationalisation of the Jaipur-Ajmer route had not been finalised and Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 were running their buses on the routes assigned to them under their permits and they could not be deemed to be displaced operators till their permits were cancelled under the draft scheme; (4) That the Jaipur-Ajmer operators had run out the time of their permit (if it be deemed that the permits granted to them were for 3 years in spite of the orders of the Transport Appellate Authority dated 29.5.1961 were valid) and as such, they were not entitled to any permits on any alternative route after the expiry of the time of their permits; (5) That under the Resolution dated 16/17.10.1961 (Ex. 3) grant of permits to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 was subject to the condition that grantees will surrender their existing permits within one month but the condition was not complied with, and, as such, it must be deemed that the applications for grant of permit of Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 were dismissed automatically, and Respondent No. 2 had no authority to extend the time limit. In any case, the time limit could not have been extended without following the procedure laid down under sec. 57 of the Act, and without giving a notice to the petitioners; (6) That there was no scope for grant of such a large number of permits on the Jaipur-Loharu route as main part at this route from Jaipur to Pilani was being properly served by existing operators and permits had been granted to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 without proper examination of the scope for grant of such permits; (7) That permits had been granted to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 on grounds which did not fall within the scope of sec. 3 to 27 without proper examination of the scope for grant of such permits; (7) That permits had been granted to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 on grounds which did not fall within the scope of sec. 47 of the Act and were extraneous and irrelevant for the purpose of granting permits; (8) That the permits for Jaipur-Loharu could not have been granted as it was an Inter-State route, and for such a route permits could be granted either under sec. 63-A by the Inter-State Commission or after following the procedure of sec. 43(1) (iv) of the Act; (9) That in any event, Respondent No. 2 had acted malafide in granting permits to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 because it had disregarded the provisions of the Act and had made up its mind to grant permits irrespective of merits and was only finding excuses to accommodate Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 regardless of the provision of the Act so that all hurdles in the finalisation of the draft scheme of Jaipur-Ajmer route may be removed. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 4.4.1962 (Ex. 5) on practically the same grounds as have been urged in respect of Ex. 3. 9. Separate replies have been filed on behalf of the operators of Jaipur-Ajmer and Jaipur-Kishangarh routes. All the points raised on behalf of the petitioners have been further urged that out of the petitioners only Bhagsingh had filed a written objection before the Regional Transport Authority and the permits which he held were renewed in the meeting of 16/17.10.1961, and if there is any validity in the contention of the petitioner that the Regional Transport Authority in that meeting could not grant the permits, it could not also renew the permit of Bhag Singh and as such he is not entitled to maintain the writ petition as he is not a. person prejudiced by grant of permits to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27. It is also contended that the permits of the other petitioners were also renewed in the same meeting and they stand on the same footing as Bhagsingh. 3 to 27. It is also contended that the permits of the other petitioners were also renewed in the same meeting and they stand on the same footing as Bhagsingh. It is also contended that the petitioners must be deemed to have been estopped from questioning that the Regional Transport Authority was not properly constituted on 16/17.10.1961 for want of quorum as they have made no objection on this score in that meeting, though they well knew that four members required to constitute a quorum were not present at that meeting. It is further urged that the Respondents should be deemed to have been granted permit under the resolution of the Respondent No. 2 dated 26/27.12.1961-Ex. 4 and there was no infirmity in that resolution and no appeal has been preferred by the petitioners against that resolution. It is also urged that the petitioners did not raise the point that the Regional Transport Authority was not properly constituted on 16/17.10.1961 before the Transport Appellate Tribunal and they cannot therefore take up this point in this Writ Petition. In any case, the Transport Appellate Tribunal was properly constituted and it had jurisdiction to grant permits to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 and the decision of that authority cannot be quashed. 10. Now we proceed to deal with the points raised on behalf of the petitioners seriatim. Point No. 1.—This point relates to the quorum. As already pointed out, under sub-rule (c) of Rule 77, the quorum for the Regional Transport Authority was four. This means that ail the members of that authority should have been present to pass a valid resolution on 16/17.10.1961. It is also not in dispute that the resolution dated 16/17.10.1961 was passed when three members were only present. The question raised is that this resolution is invalid as the Regional Transport Authority was not properly constituted on the dates this resolution was passed. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the un-reported case of this Court (to which Bhandari, J. was a party)-Messrs, Rajasthan Transport Corporation, Nathdwara vs. The State Transport Authority, Rajasthan & others—D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 183 of 1960, decided on 11.1.62 and the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. Their Workmen (1). In the first case, the quorum for proper constitution of the Regional Transport Authority was four under Rule 76, while only two members passed a certain order. This order was quashed by this Court on the ground that the order passed by two members cannot be deemed to have been passed by the Regional Transport Authority as power to pass such an order can be exercised in accordance with the rules relating to the conduct of business by that authority. In the Supreme Court case, the material observation is with regard to a Tribunal composed of three members. It was held that while the services of one member have ceased to be available, the rest by themselves have no right to act as Tribunal. There is yet another case of the Madras High Court reported in Kama Umi Isa Ammal vs. Rama Kudumban(2). In that case only two members of the Tribunal heard and disposed of an appeal filed under Section 9(4)(a) of the Madras Act No. 26 of 1948 which provided in Section 3(2) that each of such Tribunal was to consist of three members. In that case, the State Government had made rules in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of that Act and in the rules it was provided that not less than two members shall be necessary to constitute a sitting of a Tribunal. It was held that the rules empowering two members of the Tribunal to sit and dispose of matters which have to be decided by the Tribunal under the various provisions of the Act are ultra vires and invalid and the impugned order was therefore passed without jurisdiction and had therefore to be quashed. On the other hand, there is a case of the Allahabad High Court, Bhagirathi & Co. vs. The State through Smt. Raziya(3). In that case provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (Act No. 26 of 1947) were under consideration. It provided for the constitution of the Bench of Panchayat Adalat in a particular manner. On the other hand, there is a case of the Allahabad High Court, Bhagirathi & Co. vs. The State through Smt. Raziya(3). In that case provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (Act No. 26 of 1947) were under consideration. It provided for the constitution of the Bench of Panchayat Adalat in a particular manner. It was held by the majority that the provisions of Section 49(2) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act did not go to the root of the jurisdiction of the bench and that if no objection had been taken to the constitution of such a bench by either party in accordance with the provisions of Section 84(b), it was not open to them to raise that point in a writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution. Desai, J. delivered a dissenting judgment. He made the following observation:— "In the result, I find that the Bench which tried the applicants was illegally constituted and had no jurisdiction to try them and that the defect in the jurisdiction could not be, and was not, waived by the applicants. The order of the panchayati adalat convicting them was void for want of jurisdiction and deserved to be set aside." (Para 24) This Court has taken the view in Badridass Kanhaiyalal vs. The Appellate Tribunal of the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan (4) that the Appellate Authority was not properly constituted as its Chairman did not possess the qualifications as required by law and as such its order suffered from patent want of jurisdiction. 11. We have given our earnest consideration to this matter. We are of opinion that if a quorum is required for the holding of a meeting of an Authority, then unless there is any special law or rule on the subject, any resolution or order passed in the meeting of such Authority having not the requisite quorum will be deemed to be of no effect, and it shall be considered as if no resolution or order had been passed. The law has made a provision for the presence of minimum number of persons to constitute a valid meeting and that provision cannot be treated as technical. Even in the case of public companies, "No business can be done unless a quorum is present."—(Meetings by Head/Pitman p. 56). The same law applies to public bodies and must with equals force apply to quasi-judicial bodies. Even in the case of public companies, "No business can be done unless a quorum is present."—(Meetings by Head/Pitman p. 56). The same law applies to public bodies and must with equals force apply to quasi-judicial bodies. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents have argued that it was open to the petitioners to have raised an objection in the meeting held on 16/17.10.1961 as they must be taken to have known that the quorum was 4 and only 3 members were present and no objection was taken before the authority. No objection was even raised before the Transport Appellate Tribunal in appeal and as such the respondents should not be permitted to raise this objection now in this Writ Petition. This Court has held in Badridass Kanhaiyalal vs. The Appellate Tribunal of the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan(4) that when the objection raised goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the subordinate Tribunal, it is open to the High Court to quash a decision of that Tribunal in proceedings for the grant of a Writ of Certiorari notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner failed to question the jurisdiction of the Tribunal before it, and challenged the jurisdiction of the subordinate Tribunal before the High Court for the first time. The case of Badridass Kanhaiyalal has been tried to be distinguished on the ground that in that case there was no appeal. Apart from the other implications of this point which we shall take notice of later on, we may say at this stage that the respondents cannot claim that the Writ Petition must be dismissed on the sole ground that objection as to the improper holding of meeting of the Regional Transport Authority was not taken by the petitioner either before it or before the Transport Appellate Tribunal. 13. Let it be clearly understood that this does not mean that in every case of want of jurisdiction a Writ of Certiorari must be issued as of right. Badridass Kanhaiyalals case does not lay down this law. The language used is that it is open to the High Court to quash a decision of a Court without jurisdiction in proceedings for grant of certiorari notwithstanding that the petitioner failed to challenge the impugned order. This is far from saying that the High Court is bound to quash such a decision in all cases of want of jurisdiction. The language used is that it is open to the High Court to quash a decision of a Court without jurisdiction in proceedings for grant of certiorari notwithstanding that the petitioner failed to challenge the impugned order. This is far from saying that the High Court is bound to quash such a decision in all cases of want of jurisdiction. In the matter of certiorari the law is that "The issuance of the writ, in the exercise of superintending control over inferior courts is not a matter of right, but one of discretion largely. It will be granted or denied according to the circumstances of each particular case, as the ends of justice may require, and in accordance with sound public policy."—(Extraordinary Legal Remedies, by Ferris (1626) Edition, p. 181.) 14. Numerous cases have been referred to us to show that in cases of want of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction a writ of certiorari must be granted as of course. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in A. M. Allison vs. B. L. Sen(5) have, however, laid down that proceedings by way of writ of certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution are "not of course". Their Lordships observed:— "The High Court of Assam had the power to refuse the writs if it was satisfied that there was no failure of justice, and in these appeals which are directed against the orders of the High Court in applications under Art. 226, we could refuse to interfere unless we are satisfied that the justice of the case requires it. But we are not so. satisfied. We are of opinion that, having regard to the merits which have been concurrently found in favour of the respondents both by the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar and the High Court, we should decline to interfere", (Para 17) In Allisons case, the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagars order was impugned before the High Court of Assam on the score on want of jurisdiction. Relying on Allisons authority learned counsel for the respondents has urged that we should decline to quash the resolution dated 16/17.10.1961 (Ex. 3) on the ground that on merits justice has been done. There is much force in this contention but we do not want to make this argument the sole ground for refusing relief to the petitioner for there are much, more stronger reasons in this case for non-interference. 15. 3) on the ground that on merits justice has been done. There is much force in this contention but we do not want to make this argument the sole ground for refusing relief to the petitioner for there are much, more stronger reasons in this case for non-interference. 15. Granting that the meeting of 16/17.10.1961 was invalid, it follows that the applications of Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 for permits cannot be deemed to be disposed of by Ex. 3 and they must be deemed to be disposed of by Ex. 4 in the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority dated 26/27.12.61. Though that meeting was held in consequence of the applications made by Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 for grant of extension of time, yet it appears that all the parties including Shri K.K. Khana Advocate for the operators of Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route were heard and it was decided that permits to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 for Jaipur-Pilani-Loharu route be issued on the condition that they surrendered their permits within three months. Ex. 4 in a way ratified what was done on 16/17.10.1961 and further granted an extension to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 for surrendering their permits. There is no question that the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority on 26/27.12.1961 did not suffer from any infirmity on the ground of quorum as by then the amendment to sub-rule (c) of Rule 77 fixing the quorum as three was duly published. 16. There is yet another reason for our non-interference. As we have already pointed out, the petitioners had filed an appeal against the resolution dated 19/17.10.1961 (Ex. 3) before the Transport Appellate Tribunal (Respondent No. 1). It cannot be denied that this authority had the power to grant or refuse permits. This authority considered the entire question on merits and came to the conclusion that permits may be granted to Respondents Nos.3 to 27. The question was raised before this authority that the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority held on 16/17/.10.1961 was invalid. This authority not only took into consideration Ex. 3 but also took into consideration Ex. 4 while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner by the order (Ex. 5). The order of the -Transport Appellate Authority (Ex. 5) is to be looked at for examining the question whether the order granting permits referring to Respondents Nos. This authority not only took into consideration Ex. 3 but also took into consideration Ex. 4 while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner by the order (Ex. 5). The order of the -Transport Appellate Authority (Ex. 5) is to be looked at for examining the question whether the order granting permits referring to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 should be quashed and not the order of the Regional Transport Authority. In this connection, we may refer to the following observation in the Collector of Customs, Calcutta vs. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. Calcutta & Co. (6):— "It is this principle, viz. that the appellate order is the operative order after the appeal is disposed of, which is in our opinion the basis of the rule that the decree of the lower court merges in the decree of the appellate court, and on the same principle it would not be incorrect to say that the order of the original authority is merged in the order of the appellate authority whatsoever its decision whether of reversal or modification or mere confirmation." (Para 5, Page 1126) Their Lordships quoted the following observations from their earlier decision in the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay vs. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. (7):— "There can be no doubt that, if an appeal is provided against an order passed by a tribunal, the decision of the appellate authority is the operative decision in law. If the appellate authority modifies or reverses the decision of the tribunal, it is obvious that it is the appellate decision that is effective and can be enforced. In law the position would be just the same even if the appellate decision merely confirms the decision of the tribunal. As a result of the confirmation or affirmance of the decision of the tribunal by the appellate authority the original decision merges in the appellate decision and it is the appellate decision alone which subsists and is operative and capable of enforcement." Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the principle laid down in the aforesaid observations cannot be applied to a case where the order of the original authority is without jurisdiction. It is urged that where the order of the original authority is a nullity, it cannot become valid merely because it is affirmed by the appellate authority. It is urged that where the order of the original authority is a nullity, it cannot become valid merely because it is affirmed by the appellate authority. Let it not be forgotten in this connection that the appellate authority in this case had power to grant or refuse permits in appeal and in the eye of law the permits to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 should be deemed to have been granted by the Transport Appellate Tribunal its jurisdiction was in no way hampered in this matter. 17. We may also refer to Kanhaiyalal Sethi vs. Collector of Land Customs, Calcutta (8) and Messrs. Satya Narayan Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. Secretary, State Transport Authority, West Bengal (9) which lay down that if a party has availed himself of the ordinary remedy provided by a special Act, he cannot thereafter turn round and begin once again from the bottom by challenging the original order under Art.226 of the Constitution. For all these reasons, we find no force in point No. 1 of the petition. Point No. 2.—Before we take up Point No. 2 into consideration, we may take notice of the two directions referred to above issued by the State Transport Authority for the reason that if we hold that these directions are valid, most of the objections raised by the petitioner in respect of grant of permits to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 will lose their potency. Under sec. 44(3) of the Act, a State Transport Authority is invested with the power to co-ordinate and regulate activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authority of the State. When nationalisation of some of the routes in the State was undertaken, it was part of the duty of the State Transport Authority to see that the existing operators may be rehabilitated. The Regional Transport Authorities were invested with the duty of granting permits to the various applicants before them. With the advent of the schemes of nationalisation, the duty to regulate and co-ordinate cast upon it made it necessary for that Authority to see that the buses of the existing operators may not remain un-utilised. The Regional Transport Authorities were invested with the duty of granting permits to the various applicants before them. With the advent of the schemes of nationalisation, the duty to regulate and co-ordinate cast upon it made it necessary for that Authority to see that the buses of the existing operators may not remain un-utilised. The direction issued by the State Transport Authority on 25.1.1961 was to the effect that all the Regional Transport Authorities in Rajasthan were to desist from granting any fresh stage carriage permits on any route in their respective areas and where there was scope for fresh permits, they were to furnish a list of the routes to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region who could offer alternative routes to the displaced operators in view of the nationalisation of routes in the said region. It was mentioned that this direction was to remain in force till all the displaced persons (operators) in Jaipur Region were rehabilitated in due process of law. In law fresh permits could be granted either under sec. 68-G(2) or by following the procedure laid down in sec. 57 of the Act. Reading the direction as a whole, we find that there is no prohibition for the Regional Transport Authority of Jaipur Region to issue permit but they were to grant permits only to persons who had been displaced. This direction was interpreted by both these Regional Transport Authority of Jaipur Region and the Transport Appellate Tribunal in this sense. We cannot find that any grave error was committed in interpreting this direction in the manner they did. The Regional Transport Authority gave a broad interpretation to the aforesaid direction inasmuch as though no permits were issued till the operators became actually displaced, yet their applications were published under sec. 57 even before they were so displaced. Respondent No. 2 has said in Ex. 3 that the spirit of the instructions is not only to give relief to the operators who were actually displaced but also those who were going to be displaced in future. At another place, it is said that the meaning of the displaced operators was that it also included the operators who are likely to be displaced. Strictly speaking, the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region was never prohibited from publishing any application under sec. 57 but only prohibited from granting permits except to the displaced persons. At another place, it is said that the meaning of the displaced operators was that it also included the operators who are likely to be displaced. Strictly speaking, the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region was never prohibited from publishing any application under sec. 57 but only prohibited from granting permits except to the displaced persons. The course followed by the said authority cannot therefore be said to be against the direction of the said Transport Authority. What we find in this case is that the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region did not publish any application of the persons who were not displaced or likely to be displaced for permits for A Class routes, while it published the applications of Petitioners Nos. 3 to 27 who in its view were likely to be displaced on account of the nationalisation of the Jaipur-Ajmer route. This was in consonance with the direction issued by the State Transport Authority which the subordinate authority as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in R. Abdulla Rowther Vs. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras &c.(10) was bound to follow, and its breach exposed it to disciplinary or other appropriate action. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the direction was for offering permits under sec. 68-G of the Act and not granting permits by following the procedure under sec. 57 of the Act. We do not read any such restriction in the directions issued by the State Transport Authority and even if we take it that such was the restriction, the petitioners can have no justifiable ground of grievance as the procedure under sec. 57 gave them fuller opportunity to place their case before the Regional Transport Authority and the Transport Appellate Tribunal. 19. Now we come directly to Point No. 2.—The contention of the petitioners is that the Jaipur-Loharu route was merely an extension of Jaipur-Pilani route and several applications including some of the petitioners had not been published by Respondent No. 2 on the ground that the State Transport Authority had instructed the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur not to issue any permit to any person for Jaipur-Pilani route, yet now permits have been granted to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 for Jaipur-Loharu route contrary to the instructions of the State Transport Authority. 3 to 27 for Jaipur-Loharu route contrary to the instructions of the State Transport Authority. We have made it clear that on the proper interpretation of the instructions of the State Transport Authority, it cannot be held that the said authority had absolutely prohibited the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region to issue any permits to anybody. On the contrary, the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region is directed to grant permits to the displaced operators in due process of law. When Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 filed applications under sec. 57 of the Act for grant of permits for Jaipur-Loharu route on the ground that they were likely to be displaced, there was nothing improper for the Regional Transport Authority to take steps under sec. 57 for granting permits and for inviting objections. The other way open to the Regional Transport Authority was to offer permits under sec. 68-G (2) of the Act. It cannot, however, be said that steps could not have been taken under sec. 57 of the Act for granting permits to the displaced operators. The petitioners were not the displaced operators and if the Regional Transport Authority did not take steps under sub-sec. 3 of sec. 57 on their application while it took such steps on the applications of the respondents, it was merely carrying out the instructions of the State Transport Authority. 20. Even otherwise, Jaipur-Loharu route must be taken to be a different route than Jaipur-Pilani route for which the petitioners are said to have made applications. The Regional Transport Authority was duty bound to take steps under sec. 3 of sec. 57 on the applications filed by Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 for permits on Jaipur-Loharu route. In this view of the matter, Point No. 2 has got no force. Points No. 3 and 4—These points are more or less of technical nature. The substance of the contentions of the petitioners is that the Jaipur-Ajmer operators would not be deemed to be displaced operators for one reason or the other. Either they were not holding any valid permits or the time for their permits had expired before the permits were issued to them or the draft scheme for nationalisation of Jaipur-Ajmer route was not finalised on 16/17.10.1961. Either they were not holding any valid permits or the time for their permits had expired before the permits were issued to them or the draft scheme for nationalisation of Jaipur-Ajmer route was not finalised on 16/17.10.1961. In the opening part of our judgment, we have already pointed out that by the order of this Court the order of the State Transport Authority dated 29.5.1961 was stayed on the date Jaipur-Ajmer operators were granted permits for Jaipur-Loharu route. They were running their buses under valid permits and they were likely to be displaced by the nationalisation of the Jaipur-Ajmer route. The petitioners have not placed before us the actual date on which the Jaipur-Ajmer operators had been granted permit for running their buses on Jaipur-Ajmer route. In the absence of such material on record, it cannot be said that the period of three years for which they had been granted permits had expired. 21. We are also of the view that the Regional Transport Authority could have taken steps under sub-sec. 3 of sec. 57 on the applications of Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 though on the date it took such steps, the draft scheme for nationalisation of Jaipur-Ajmer route had not been finalised. Likelihood of Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 to be displaced operators was looming large, and Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 found no chance of survival on the Jaipur-Ajmer route and they thought it to their advantage to apply for permits on other routes before they were actually displaced so that when on account of nationalisation their permits for Jaipur-Ajmer were cancelled, they may not have to face a situation a their buses remaining idle for a long time. In view of these circumstances, we do not find that there is any case for interference in the orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, or the Transport Appellate Tribunal for the reasons urged by the petitioners under the two points. Point No. 5.—The petitioners contention is that under the resolution dated 16/17-10 1961 (Ex. 3) grant of permits to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 was subject to the condition that they will surrender their permits within one month and since they failed to do so, it must be taken that their applications were dismissed automatically and Respondents No. 2 had no authority to extend the time limit. 3) grant of permits to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 was subject to the condition that they will surrender their permits within one month and since they failed to do so, it must be taken that their applications were dismissed automatically and Respondents No. 2 had no authority to extend the time limit. Further it is urged that time limit could not be extended without giving a notice to the petitioners and without following the procedure laid down in sec. 57 of the Act. The ready answer to this point is that on their own arguments, the petitioners cannot say that Ex. 3 was a valid or operative order. They have challenged the validity of this order on the ground that it was passed by the Regional Transport Authority without proper quorum. We have also pointed out that the applications of the petitioners must be taken to be disposed of by the resolution dated 26/27.12.61 (Ex. 4). We have also pointed out that the petitioners had been granted a hearing before passing the said resolution. Thus, there is no force in the first part of the contention of the petitioner. Even if we held that Ex. 3 was a valid resolution, it did not state that the applications of Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 for grant of permits would be deemed to be dismissed if they did not surrender their permits within the period of one month. Their applications must be held to be pending even after one month and on such applications order could be passed granting Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 more time for surrendering their permits. Respondent No. 2 was still seized of the matter and had not lost jurisdiction to deal with the application of Respondents Nos. 3 to 27. Here we may mention that the essence of the condition imposed in Ex. 3 was that Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 should not be issued permits unless they surrendered their existing permits, i. e. unless they finally gave up their rights to run their buses on the Jaipur-Ajmer route which was being nationalised. For certain reasons Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 continued to run their buses on their respective routes up to March, 1962, and the Regional Transport Authority thought it proper that on that account it should not penalise them. For certain reasons Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 continued to run their buses on their respective routes up to March, 1962, and the Regional Transport Authority thought it proper that on that account it should not penalise them. We cannot hold that in taking this view of the matter, the Regional Transport Authority acted without jurisdiction or acted unreasonably. 22. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Such condition could not be imposed under sec. 48 except when the Regional Transport Authority meant to say that Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 shall commence services on Jaipur-Loharu route after the expiry of one month. Such a condition could be imposed on the respondents under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 48. Such a condition could also be varied by the same authority and it was not necessary that the procedure provided under sec. 57 should not have been followed for varying such a condition. Sec. 57(8) lays down that an application to avail of the condition of permits by inclusion of a new route or routes for stage carriage permits by increasing the number of services above the minimum shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. That sub-section is not attracted in this case. The petitioners cannot also invoke the principles of natural justice as their counsel Mr. Khanna was heard before the resolution (Ex. 4) was passed. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the Transport Appellate Tribunal had invoked Rule 86 to support the action of the Regional Transport Authority in the matter of extension of time and Rule 86 was obviously not applicable. We agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that Rule 86 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case but as already pointed out the action of the Regional Transport Authority in extending time was not illegal. The Transport Appellate Tribunal has also taken this view, though in our view its reasoning is erroneous. We do not think that in this the Regional Transport Authority acted beyond jurisdiction and in excess of the power conferred on it. Point No. 6.—The respondents contention under this head is that there was no scope for granting of 25 permits to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 for Jaipur-Loharu route, as this route was being properly served by existing operators. Point No. 6.—The respondents contention under this head is that there was no scope for granting of 25 permits to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 for Jaipur-Loharu route, as this route was being properly served by existing operators. After examination of the entire situation, both the authorities have taken the view that there was scope for 25 permits. No material has been placed before us challenging this finding except the bald statement that the existing operators running their buses from Jaipur to Pilani were properly serving the entire route. The question for determination of the scope was a question of fact primarily to be determined by the Regional Transport Authority and that Authority came to the conclusion that there was scope tor granting 25 permits to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27. This view was confirmed by the Transport Appellate Tribunal. It is not for us to interfere with the view of the subordinate Tribunal on a matter which solely depends on facts. We may, however add that the petitioners have failed to produce any material before us in support of their contention. This contention is, therefore, rejected. Point No. 7.—The complaint of the petitioners is that the permits have been granted to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 on the grounds which do not fall within the scope of sec. 47 and extraneous and irrelevant considerations have been imported in their orders by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur as well as the Transport Appellate Tribunal for the purpose of granting permits. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the main ground for granting permit was that Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 were the displaced operators but this could not form a ground for granting permits. We must reject this contention firstly on the ground that the list of the matters given in sec. 47 is not exhaustive. Sec. 47 only lays down that in considering applications for stage carriage permit, the Regional Transport Authority shall have regard to the matters stated in sec. 47(1). This does not mean that the Regional Transport Authority shall consider only the matters referred to in sec. 47(1) and no others. These matters have to be considered along with other matters such as experience of the applicant, availability of stage carriages with applicant, etc. 47(1). This does not mean that the Regional Transport Authority shall consider only the matters referred to in sec. 47(1) and no others. These matters have to be considered along with other matters such as experience of the applicant, availability of stage carriages with applicant, etc. Secondly, while looking to the interest of public generally Respondent No. 1 and 2 could legitimately look that the available resources whether in the private or public sector should be utilized to the maximum and the buses of respondents to whom permits have been granted may not remain idle. 24. In the instant case, the consideration that the petitioner was a displaced operator carried with it the consideration that he had previous experience of running buses, that he had a bus available with him and that the bus of the applicant was likely to remain idle if not utilized for no fault of the applicant. These matters cannot be said to be outside the purview of sec. 47. Moreover, there was room for 25 permits, and as pointed out, by the Transport Appellate Tribunal, there were only 25 applicants and there was no difficulty if one permit was granted to each of the operators. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this contention has got no force. Point No. 8—The contention of the petitioner is that permits for Jaipur-Loharu route could only be granted either under sec. 63-A by the Inter-State Commission or after following the procedure in sec. 43(l)(iv). Jaipur-Loharu route is 167 miles in length, only 3 miles of which fall in the State of Punjab. When this argument was addressed before the Transport Appellate Tribunal, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority pointed out that according to an agreement between the two States, it was not necessary to consult the Punjab State for grant of permits by the Rajasthan Transport Authorities for such a short distance. This point is not controverted before us. As pointed out by this Court in Dholpur Co-operative Transport and Multi-purposes Union Ltd. Vs. The Appellate Authority (Transport), Rajasthan (11), the Regional Transport Authority had the power to grant permit up to the border of Rajasthan with the Punjab State. For the 3 miles falling in the Punjab State, it appears that the Punjab State had no objection for running of the buses on the permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Rajasthan. The Appellate Authority (Transport), Rajasthan (11), the Regional Transport Authority had the power to grant permit up to the border of Rajasthan with the Punjab State. For the 3 miles falling in the Punjab State, it appears that the Punjab State had no objection for running of the buses on the permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Rajasthan. In view of this circumstance, this contention of the petitioner is entirely devoid of force. Moreover, the petitioners have no right to assail the permits granted to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 on this ground. Point No. 9.—The last contention of the petitioners is that Respondent No;2 has acted mala fide. It is alleged that the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region had made up its mind to grant permits to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 so that all hurdles in the finalisation of the draft scheme of Jaipur-Ajmer route be removed, and it was bent upon granting permits to these respondents regardless of the provisions of the Act. We have discussed at length the contentions of the petitioners regarding the contravention of the provisions of the Act in granting permits to Respondents Nos. 3 to 27 and we are of the opinion that there has been no contravention of the material provisions of the Act. If on a route there is some scope for grant of permits, permits are granted to persons who are likely to be displaced, we cannot characterise this act of Respondent No. 2 as malafide. It cannot be void in this case that Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have not dealt with the objections raised by the petitioner in a quasi-judicial manner. Looking to the entire material on the record, we are of the opinion that no case of malafide is made out. This contention is, therefore, without any force. 25. No other point has been urged. 26. After giving a careful and earnest consideration to the entire circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that this Writ petition should be dismissed. We, however, order that parties shall bear their own costs in this Writ petition. 27. Now we take up Writ Petition No. 527 of 1962 Bhagsingh vs. The Transport Appellate Tribunal for Rajasthan, Jaipur, and 5 others. The petitioner in this Writ petition is Bhagsingh, who is an operator on the Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route. We, however, order that parties shall bear their own costs in this Writ petition. 27. Now we take up Writ Petition No. 527 of 1962 Bhagsingh vs. The Transport Appellate Tribunal for Rajasthan, Jaipur, and 5 others. The petitioner in this Writ petition is Bhagsingh, who is an operator on the Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route. He is also the President of the Union of the operators on that route. Respondent No. 1 is the Transport Appellate Tribunal for Rajasthan, Jaipur, while Respondent No. 2 is the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region and Respondents Nos 3 to 6 are the persons to whom permits have been granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region under Resolution No. 92 of 1962 passed in the meeting held on 3/4.5.1962 Annexure 4 on record for Jaipur-Loharu route. The petitioners went in appeal to the Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, which was dismissed on 18th July, 1962, by the said Tribunal. The resolution (Annexure 4) and the order (Annexure 5) are sought to be quashed in this Writ petition on several grounds which are of the same nature as raised by Bhagsingh in Writ Petition No. 255 of 1962 and which we have already rejected above. It is not necessary for us to cover the same ground over again in this Writ petition. The only ground which requires, consideration is based on the following facts. 28. Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were operators of Jaipur-Kishengarh route which was nationalised. After the nationalisation, each of them was granted a permit of Jaipur-Bassi-Toonga route in the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur held on 27.2.62. This resolution was, however, set aside by the Transport Appellate Tribunal on 12th of March, 1962, on appeal by the existing operators of Jaipur-Bassi-Toonga route. Then Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 applied for permit on Jaipur-Loharu route. Their applications were duly published. The Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region found that there were four vacancies on that route as four out of 25 grantees of permits under Exhibits 3 and 4 of the previous Writ petition on 16/17.10.1961 and 26/27.12.1961 did not obtain-permits. It is urged that Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 cannot be called displaced operators as they had already been granted permits on Jaipur-Bassi-Toonga route. It is urged that Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 cannot be called displaced operators as they had already been granted permits on Jaipur-Bassi-Toonga route. This argument is altogether without any force as it is clear that their permits had been cancelled by the Transport Appellate Authority on the ground that there was no scope on that route. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. We, however, pass no order as to costs.