JUDGMENT U. N. Sinha J. This writ application has been filed by Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that the orders contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 3 of this writ application be quashed. 2. The relevant facts are these: One permanent vacancy for a route from Jehanabad to Kurtha (distance 14- miles) was advertised for grant of a permanent permit under the Motor Vehicles act, 1939 and 11 applications had been received by the authority. The present petitioner had made an objection to the effect that out of this route, a distance of 2 miles from Jehanabad had been nationalised. It had been urged before Sooth Bihar Road Transport Authority that while granting a permit to a private operator the nationalised portion should be excluded. This contention was negatived on the ground that the nationalised portion of the route was a negligible distance, covering the municipal limits only. Whereafter, the Road Transport Authority decided to grant permit to Sri Prayag Choudhary, respondent no. 5, for three years, on certain conditions mentioned in Annexure 3. Several appeals were filed before the appellate authority, of which one was filed by Sri Ramprit Singh, respondent no. 6. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation had of course filed its own appeal. Sri Ramprit Singh's appeal succeeded and the order granting permit to Sri Prayag Chaudhary was set aside. In the appeal filed by the Road Transport Corporation it was held thus : "I would at the same time order that the sanctity of the notified portion should be kept intact and this should be done by imposing a condition on the permit that so long as the bus will be plying through the short distance in the notified portion, it should not pick up or drop down any passenger." Thereafter, the Road Transport Corporation made a representation under Section 64A of the Motor Vehicles (Bihar Amendment) Act against the order of the Appeal Board and that representation was rejected by the State Government. The only question which arises in this case is validity of the conditions laid down by the Appeal Board. 3. The only question which arises in this case is validity of the conditions laid down by the Appeal Board. 3. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that no permit could have been granted for the notified part of the route and the condition laid down by the Appeal Board is an apparent error of law on the face of the record. It is argued that no permit should have been granted for a distance of two miles from Jehanabad out of Jehanabad-Kurtba route, which is said to be fourteen miles in length. The point under consideration is covered by an earlier decision of this Court in the case of (1) Baikantha Jha V. State of Bihar, reported in 1969 B. L. J. R. 901. In the writ application it has been stated that the route from Jebanabad upto Babbuua is a notified route in which the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna has exclusive right to ply buses. In a counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 5, Sri Prayag Choudhary, who is the petitioner of C. W. J. C. 628 of 1969, disposed of today, this assertion of the petitioner has been controverted by saying that only half mile of the notified route passes through Jehanabad-Kartha route. The writ petitioners exclusive right to by buses is also controverted. But, in a further affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner its stand in the original writ application has been reiterated and a copy of the notification has been annexed. It is clear therefore, that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is valid and in the Jehanabad-Kurtha route the portion which falls within the scheme must be excluded by the South Bihar Regional Transport Authority, Patna. The part of the order complained of is, therefore, quashed, and as bi Judgment delivered in C.W.J.C. 628 of 1969, permit has to be granted to Sri Prayag Choudhary by the South Bihar Regional Transport Authority, Patna, it will Exclude the portion of the route over which the petitioner has exclusive right to ply buses, that is to say, portion of the Jehanabad-Kurtha route which falls within the notified scheme. A similar point was decided by this Court in the case of (2) Hazi Md. A similar point was decided by this Court in the case of (2) Hazi Md. Razaque Khan V. The State of Bihar (C. W. J. C. 1059 of 1968, decided on the 6th February, 1970) and it is now expected that the authorities whose duty is to grant permits will now follow the decisions of this Court on the point under consideration. 4. This writ application is, therefore, allowed with the observations made above. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order for costs. KANHAIYAJI, J. I agree. Application allowed.