( 1 ) ON 24th June 1974, the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) issued a notification under S. 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, (shortly called 'the Act') inviting applications for the grant of stage carriage permits on the route "mysore to Koudehalli and back". The Gazette notification shows that it was signed by the in-charge Secretary of the RTA. In response to the said notification, respondents 2 to 18 submitted their applications. The petitioner was one among the objectors opposing the grant of the proposed permits. On 11th June, 1975, the applications came up for consideration before the RTA. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection that the notification issued under S. 57 (2) was invalid, since it was issued by the ir-charge Secretary who was incompetent to perform the statutory functions under the Act. That objection was based on the well known principle that a person in-charge of a statutory office can only perform the day to day routine works and not the statutory functions. The rta accepted that objection and directed the return of the applications to the concerned applicants under Rule 100 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. The applicants, however, did not take back the applications, which, therefore remained on the file of the RTA. ( 2 ) AFTER llth June, 1975, on which day the RTA made the above order, a similar question relating to the validity of the notification issued by the in-charge Secretary of the RTA carne up for consideration before this Court in Nanjappa M. v. Karnataka STATE, 1975 2 Karlj. 258. in which it was observed that such notification would not be invalid since the RTA only performs a ministerial act by issuing any such notification. The above decision was brought to the notice of the members of the RTA by some of the applicants to show that the view taken by the RTA in its order dated 11th june 1975 was incorrect. The RTA then thought that the matter required reconsideration and so it issued notices to all the applicants and also to the objectors stating that the applications of respondents 2 to 18 would be considered on the merits on 1st Septr, 1975. The petitioner along with some others objected to the RTA from reconsidering its earlier decision stating that it has no jurisdiction to review its own order. The petitioner along with some others objected to the RTA from reconsidering its earlier decision stating that it has no jurisdiction to review its own order. It is said that on 1st septr, 1975, the RTA heard the parties, considered the merits of the applications, and orally informed the parties that it would grant permits to seme of the applicants. Before the written order was made, the petitioner approached this Gourt with an application under Art. 226 of the Constn, praying for a writ of prohibition to restrain the RTA from pronouncing its order, primarily on the contention that the RTA has no power to review its own order. ( 3 ) THE decision on the question, therefore, turns on the scope of the order dated 11th June, 1975 which is set out hereunder:" Since it was contended on behalf of some of the objectors thai the Notification published under sub-sec (2) of Sec. 57 of the Motor vehicles Act inyiting applications for selection of permit holder for the route Mysore to Gowdalli and Gowdalli to Mysore is not maintainable under the law as the same has been notified by the Secretary, who was in-charge during the absence of the Regular Secretary and that under the law the power to invite the applications is a statutory power vested with the RTA and that power exercisable under Rule 95 of the rules 1963 is in the Secretary, RTA to whom such power is delegated and not the other who might be placed in-charge during his absence. In the above circumstances, the RTA decided that a fresh notfication under the signature of the Regular Secretary is necessary and accordingly resolved that a fresh notification inviting applications under sub-sec (2) of S. 57 of the M. V. Act may be issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. The applications received in response to the notification published by the Secretary who was in-charge may be. returned to the applicants concerned along with the challans and other enclosures under Rule 100 of the M. V. Rules. "it was urged for the petitioner that the above order directing the return of the applications in the context, was an order disposing or rejecting the said applications and the aggrieved parties should have preferred appeals against the said order and the RTA has no jurisdiction to review its own order. "it was urged for the petitioner that the above order directing the return of the applications in the context, was an order disposing or rejecting the said applications and the aggrieved parties should have preferred appeals against the said order and the RTA has no jurisdiction to review its own order. Before I consider the above contention, it is necessary to bear in mind that the Act does not specifically confer on the RTA the power to review its own order made under the provisions of the Act. The RTA being the statutory authority, has to perform its functions in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It has to dispose of the application for a stage carriage permit at the public hearing as provided by s. 57 (5) of the Act which states that when any representation is made against the application, the RTA shall dispose of the application at a public hearing at which the applicant and the rerson making the representation shall have an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a duly authorised representative. The order made thereunder either by granting or by refusing to grant a permit, is made appealable under S. 64 (1) (n) of the Act. If the order dated llth June, 1975 was an order disposing of the applications in the above manner, then the RTA must be held to have no right to re-consider the said applications, and the parties must have referred the appeals against the said order. If it was not, the RTA would be under a legal obligation to consider and dispose of the said applications in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 57 (5 ). ( 4 ) I will now turn to the order dated 11th June, 1975, it shows that the RTA was primarily concerned with the validity of the notification issued by the in-charge Secretary and it did not advert to the merits of the applications or the objections raised by the petitioner against the grant of permits. Tht RTA then held that the in-charce Secretary was not competent to issue the notification under S. 57 (2) of the Act and consequently it directed the return of the applications received in response to the said notification. It is not disputed that the order determining the validity of such notification is not appealable under the Act. Tht RTA then held that the in-charce Secretary was not competent to issue the notification under S. 57 (2) of the Act and consequently it directed the return of the applications received in response to the said notification. It is not disputed that the order determining the validity of such notification is not appealable under the Act. So also, the order directing the return of the applications under Rule 100 of the Motor Vehicles rules is not appealable. The said rule itself gives an indication that the return of the application is net the same thing as rejection or disposing of the Application. The rule provides that the application should not be rejected on technical grounds, But it shall be returned to the applicants for rectification of any defects or for presentation to the authority which has jurisdiction to dispose of. It is difficult, to state that the RTA while returning the applications, has in fact disposed them of, as provided by S. 57 (5 ). The disposal of the applications as provided by S. 57 (5) of the Act, means that the RTA must consider the applications and the objections, if any, on the merits, and make an order either granting or refusing to grant the permit. That wag also the view taken by this Court in D. T. Lakshminarasimha lyengar v. RTA, (1963) 2 Myslj. 65. where it was observed :" Although sub-sec (5) only directs the RTA to 'dispose of the. application, the clear meaning of the expression is that it must either grant the permit or refuse it. That, that is the meaning to be given to that expression is clear from sub-sec (7) which directs: the RTA to state the reasons in case of refusal of the application. " ( 5 ) IT was, however, submitted that the fact that the RTA did not grant the permit on llth June 1975 to any one of the applicants itself shows that it rejected their applications or refused to grant the permits, and therefore that that order was appealable under S. 64 (1) (a) of the Act. In support of that contention,, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court fa G. N. Ramachandra Setty v. MRAT (3), (1966 ). 2 Myslj. 49,. In support of that contention,, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court fa G. N. Ramachandra Setty v. MRAT (3), (1966 ). 2 Myslj. 49,. That was a case where the rta after considering the application and without making a specific order of granting or refusing it, recommended the same to the State Transport authority for further action. This Court in the context held that the re-commendation must be held to be a refusal to grant the permit and therefore appealable under S. 64 (l) (a) of the Act. It may be relevant to state that the RTA in that case considered the application on the merits and without granting the permit, it recommended the said application to the sta. The facts of the present case are quite different. The RTA did not consider the merits of the applications in this case on llth June 1975. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the facts of the case and the context in which the order dated llth June 1975 was made, it must be held that the said order was not appealable as it was not an order disposing of the applications for permit, and therefore the RTA would be well within its jurisdiction nay, under a legal obligation to dispose of the same applications to accordance with law. ( 7 ) IN the result, the rule is discharged without an order as to costs. --- *** --- .