JUDGMENT In this rule the petitioners have impeached a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority dated 19th December 1974, whereby the existing bus fares of several routes have been reduced. 2. The petitioners No. 1, viz., Bus Owners Samannoy Committee, is an association, which has alleged to have more than 600 stage carriage operators and bus owners as members, including the other petitioners viz., petitioners Nos. 2 to 6. The petitioner No.2 is an operator in route from Belpahari to Midnapore, the petitioner No.3 operates from Tamluk to Midnapore, petitioner No.4 is an operator in the route from Tamluk to Geonkhali, petitioner No. 5 plies in the route from Jhargram to Digha and petitioner No.6 is a plier in the route from Borda to Midnapore. 3. Under section 4A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the State Government has constituted the respondents in the instant case, for the purposes of discharging their duties, obligation and functions under the said Act and under section 43 of the same the State Government is also empowered to issue directions on those authorities regarding fixation of fares of stage carriages, under section 48. There is also no dispute that under section 48 of the said Act, the Regional Transport Authority concerned is authorised to direct the stage carriages operators to charge fares in accordance with the fare table as approved by them. The observance of the said fare table under section 59 of the said Act is a condition precedent in cases of stage carriage operators and for any violation or breach of the same, they are punishable with suspension or cancellation of their permits under section 60 of the said Act. It has also been alleged by the petitioners that in terms of the provisions as mentioned hereinbefore, fares for the stage carriages for the concerned routes were initially fixed about 30 years back and in the year 1964, in a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority concerned, the issue regarding conversion from miles to kilometer and from pice to Naya Paisa was duly considered and the fares for such stage carriages were fixed at 2.75 paise per kilometer per passenger. The petitioners have alleged that such fixation of fare was in operation for a long time and since there was no change in the said fare structure, the petitioners amongst other operators, suffered immense loss because of the rise in the price of buses, spare parts, fuel and other overhead expenditure for running those buses. They have alleged to have made series of representations for the purpose of having the revision of such fare structure on consideration of the factors as mentioned herein above. The petitioners have stated that pursuant to such representations and also because of the representations made by other operators in other routes all over the West Bengal, a Commission which is popularly known "Banerjee Commission" with Hon'ble Mr. Justice Binayak Nath Banerjee, a retired Judge of the Calcutta High Court, as the sole member, was set up by the State of West Bengal for the purpose of enquiring into the issues as were referred to before him and to make his report. The petitioners have also contended that after careful consideration of all the relevant factors, the said Banerjee Commission in or about 1973 recommended a rate of 3.75 to 4 paise per kilometer per passenger for the district of Midnapore. The petitioners have further alleged that even after the making of the recommendations by the said Commission, there has been a further increase in the cost of running the stage carriages because of rise in the Government duties and taxes, further increase in the price of spare parts and fuel, apart from the fact that the operators, because of the bad condition of the roads are required now to spend more on account of maintenance of their vehicles and to keep them viable. These apart, the petitioners have also contended that the cost of running the stage carriages have also increased further because of the enhanced rate of insurance premium, road taxes and other charges. The petitioners have further stated that in view of the subsequent rise in the cost of the running of the stage carriages they have also made due demand and representation to the authorities concerned for further increase in the rates of fares. 4. The petitioners have further stated that in view of the subsequent rise in the cost of the running of the stage carriages they have also made due demand and representation to the authorities concerned for further increase in the rates of fares. 4. There is also no dispute that the respondent, Regional Transport Authority by its resolution No. 17 in a meeting held on 17th June, 1974 resolved to direct its Secretary to prepare the charge of fare table on the basis of 3.50 pahe per kilometer and another at the rate of 0.4 paise per kilometer and thereafter in its meeting held on 6th September, 1974 the said Regional Transport Authority duly resolved to increase the fare at the rate of 3.75 paise per kilometer but they did not fix the date from which such rate would take effect. The resolution as mentioned hereinbefore was passed to the following effect : "Considered the representation of the Co-ordination Committee of the district bus owners dated 12.8.74 praying for increase of bus fare. The meeting has discussed at length along with the report of the Banerjee Commission received recently. Resolved with dissent of Shri D. Mukherjee, member R.T.A. who opposed any increase in the bus fare now, that the bus fare be increased as per recommendations of the report of the Banerjee Commission. The Secretary R.T.A. be requested to prepare a structure of fare of every stage at the rate of 3.75 P. per passenger per K.M. on black top, concrete and good metalled road within 3 weeks and to place before the next meeting for approval..." 5. There is also no dispute that in its next meeting which was held on 30th September, 1974 the said Regional Transport Authority unanimously resolved to fix the fare at the rate of 0-4 paise per kilometer per passenger and such resolution has also been duly confirmed in the meeting of the said Regional Transport Authority on 25th November, 1974. The petitioners have also alleged that a fare table on the basis of 4 paise per kilometer per passenger has also been prepared and duly approved by the Regional Transport Authority concerned. It further appears that the aforementioned new bus fare at the rate of 0-4 paise per kilometer per passenger was implemented on and from 1st December, 1974 but there was some public agitation. It further appears that the aforementioned new bus fare at the rate of 0-4 paise per kilometer per passenger was implemented on and from 1st December, 1974 but there was some public agitation. Such agitation, the petitioners have alleged was staged at the instance of some interested persons and they have further stated that there was no basis or justification for such agitation. Since it became impossible for the petitioners to ply their stage carriages in view of the agitation as mentioned above, they sought for the help and assistance of the Regional Transport Authority concerned and on the basis of such representation, it has been alleged, that the said Regional Transport Authority concerned caned a further meeting to be held on 19th December, 1974 for discussing the representations received from the different sources regarding the implementation of its resolution No. 12 of 30th September, 1974 in connection with the increase of fare structure of stage carriages in the district. The said resolution of 30th September, 1974 it to the following effect :– "Proceeding of the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Midnapur held on 30.9.74 at 12 noon in the office chamber of the District Magistrate, Midnapore. The Chairman of the R T A presided over the meeting. Secretary, RTA Midnapur placed all the papers before the members of the RTA for their consideration. Heard the members of the Samannya Committee as proposed by them in their memorandum date 30.9.74 regarding preparation of enhanced fare structure as decided on the last RTA, meeting dated 6.9.74 at para 7. Resolved that the fare structure of different stages on different routes of the district will be 4(four) paise per KM per head instead of 3.75 paise per head per KM as decided by the RTA in its meeting date 6.9.74. It is further resolved that the new fare structure will be introduced with effect from 1.12.74. The approved fare structure is appended in Annexure 'X'. All bus operators should display the enhanced rates in their buses and notice board for information of travelling public. 6. The petitioners have also alleged that on such date of hearing viz. It is further resolved that the new fare structure will be introduced with effect from 1.12.74. The approved fare structure is appended in Annexure 'X'. All bus operators should display the enhanced rates in their buses and notice board for information of travelling public. 6. The petitioners have also alleged that on such date of hearing viz. 19th December, 1974, they were ready to put forward their suggestions to meet the situation which had so arisen, but strangely enough the Regional Transport Authority concerned by its resolution No. 3 dated 19th December, 1974 unilaterally reduced the bus fare so fixed at 0.4 paise per kilometer per passenger to 3.50 paise per kilometer per passenger and further resolved that concession of 50% should be given to the students. Apart from those, it was also resolved to grant monthly concession tickets for daily passengers, the rates whereof was to be fixed by the passenger and bus operators. The petitioners have challenged the said resolution which is in annexure 'D' to the petition as illegal, bad, motivated and brought about by political pressure. In fact, the petitioners have contended, that from a reference to the impugned resolution in Annexure 'D', it would appear that no grounds have been made out or even put forward for such reduction of the existing rates and furthermore they have also alleged that there is no provision in law, which empowers the said Regional Transport Authority to grant concession at the rate of 50% to the students or to direct the issue or grant of monthly tickets at concessional rates. In view of the above, the petitioners have alleged the said resolution to be arbitrary and without the sanction of law. That apart, the petitioners have also contended that since there has been no power under the said Act empowering the Regional Transport Authority to review their decision and more particularly when there has been no disclosure of new fact, so even in terms of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the review of the fare structure which was sought to be made, was irregular, void and improper. The petitioners have also contended that since no cogent reason for such review has been given, so the order was also improper. The petitioners have further contended the impugned resolution to be violative of the principles of natural justice, as no proper hearing was given to them. The petitioners have also contended that since no cogent reason for such review has been given, so the order was also improper. The petitioners have further contended the impugned resolution to be violative of the principles of natural justice, as no proper hearing was given to them. Apart from all these, the petitioners have also contended the fixation of fare structure at such a low rate at Midnapore, to be discriminatory because for stage carriages in other districts like Bankura, Murshidabad, Burdwan, Nadia and Birbhum, higher rates have been fixed by the respective Regional Transport Authorities. They have contended that since the cost of spare parts or expenses as required to be incurred by the stage carriage operators in all the districts are more or less the same, so such action in fixing the fare structure at such a low rate was also highly discriminatory. They have contended that the fare structure, so far their stage carriages at Midnapore are concerned should have been either fixed at a higher rate than which was resolved, viz., 0.4 paise per kilometer per passenger by the Regional Transport Authority concerned or failing that, at the rate which was fixed by them. Mr. Moitra appearing for the petitioners have also contended that in course of implementing the recommendations of the said Banerjee Commission, which incidentally is the case sought to be made out by the respondents, they again exercised power of review for the reasons as mentioned hereinbefore. He has further contended the subsequent fixation to be unreasonable and in any event he has contended that the Regional Transport Authority concerned has no right to fix stage carriage fares. The respondent in their return to the rule has practically admitted the facts as alleged but they have contended that the subsequent reduction of fare was not by way of review of the earlier fares as fixed. But such reduction was required because of the proper implementation of the recommendations made by the Banerjee Commission. They have stated that although by the resolution of 30th September, 1974, which was implemented on 25th November, 1974 fare structures for the concerned routes were fixed at 0.4 paise per kilometer per passenger, yet the same could not be given effect to because of public agitation and representations. They have also contended that such reduction of fare was also necessitated because of apprehension of breach of peace. They have also contended that such reduction of fare was also necessitated because of apprehension of breach of peace. In any event Mr. Basu appearing for the respondents has submitted that the instant case was not a case of review but a case of duly implementing the recommendations of the said Benerjee Commission. He has further made it clear that such reduction of fare structure was made because it was felt that because of serious agitations by the travelling public, there was every possibility of causing complete dislocation of the transport services in the district whereby the cause of the travelling public, which incidentally is the very basis of the grant of stage carriage permits, would be frustrated. Mr. Basu has further submitted that since about more than 100 members of the Bus Owners Samannoy Committee, attended the meeting, in which the subsequent resolution reducing the fare structure was adopted, so the petitioners cannot also have any grievance against the said resolution. He has further submitted that the fixation of such subsequent fare structure at a low rate was made not only after considering the objections received from the travelling public, but also after considering the representations made by the members of the said Bus Owners Samannoy Committee. In any event the respondents have denied any discriminatory treatment made to the concerned operators as alleged. 7. The respondents further relied on the findings of the said Banerjee Commission, which are to the following effect : "Bus operators in Midnapore, although keen on having an increased fare structure, were strangely non-co-operative with the Commission and excepting for verbal assertions not accompanied by documentary were curiously silent. In his evidence, the District Magistrate himself said. "For some time past the bus operators are asking for an increase bus fare. They have not however, put forward any concrete proposal for increase before the Regional Transport Authority." They did not also file any memorandum before the Commission, nor did they answer the questions are prepared by the Commission. The assistance received by the Commission from bus operators, during the spot inquiry, was also very meagre." and submitted that since the operators in the instant case took no effective steps to have their cases duly considered or represented before the said Banerjee Commission, so they cannot also have any grievance in having the fares so fixed at a lower rate. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Moitra, in support of his contentions submitted that review is a remedy which is required to be applied under special circumstances. The jurisdiction or power to review cannot be assumed or imported in the absence of any specific provision therefor or even indication of the conditions for the exercise of the same in the statute. In support of his contentions that the Regional Transport Authorities have got no power of review, he first relied on the case of (1) Ramnath Prasad v. State Transport Appellate Authority, Bihar, Patna & Ors., AIR 1957 Patna 117 where it has been held that it is well settled that a power of review is not inherent in any authority. The moment a right to decide is exercised, the authority becomes functus officio, except for the matter of grave clerical errors, or mistakes committed by the authority, for which the authority is responsible. There is, therefore, no inherent power to review apart from the statute except to correct its own mistake. The Regional Transport Authority has no power either to entertain an application for review of its own order or to re-view its own order, and there is no appeal to the Appeal Board against an order passed by the RTA, rejecting an application for review. Thereafter, Mr. Moitra relied on the case of (2) Rameshwar Sinha & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1960 Patna 6 wherein it has been held that no authority or court call claim by implication a power to revised its own order. It is purely a question of statute and in the absence of any provision empowering any authority or court to review its own order, there cannot be a review of the order. It has also been held in that case that there is no provision in the said Act to confer upon the Regional Transport Authority, a power to review its own order. Therefore, an order of the Regional Transport Authority reviewing its own order, is wholly without jurisdiction, null and void and without any legal effect. 9. The question whether Tribunals have all the powers of a Civil Court or not although under a different statute viz., West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, came up for consideration before this Court and a Bench decision of this Court in the case of (3) Sm. Indira Debi & Anr. 9. The question whether Tribunals have all the powers of a Civil Court or not although under a different statute viz., West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, came up for consideration before this Court and a Bench decision of this Court in the case of (3) Sm. Indira Debi & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1967 Calcutta 469, has observed that a quasi judicial Tribunal cannot claim or exercise an inherent power of a Civil Court unless the statute confers all the powers of a Civil Court on such a Tribunal. It has also been held in that case that a Tribunal cannot be equated to a Civil Court, except on authority of law, and unless therefore, a statute confers upon such quasi-judicial Tribunal all the powers of a Civil Court either expressly or by implication the inherent powers of Civil Court cannot be exercised by such Tribunal. In my view the principle as enunciated in Indira Debi's case (supra), even though under a different statute, may be applied in this ease, when the question for consideration i.e. whether Tribunal has inherent power of review, is common. Thus, it cannot be disputed that an inferior Court or Tribunal has no power of review, except when such power is granted by statute and in fact there is no inherent power of review. This is also well settled that except for correction of clerical errors or mistakes by the authority concerned, the moment a right to decide is exercised, such authority becomes functus officio. The right of review is not inherent and such power has not been conferred on the Tribunal under the said Act. The Regional Transport Authority, as has been held in the case of Ramnath Prasad v. State Transport Appellate Authority (supra) has no power either to entertain an application for review of its own order or to review its own order. Neither in the said Act nor in the Rules framed thereunder, there is any provision for review of its own order by the Regional Transport Authority. 10. As recorded earlier, it is the definite case of the Respondents that the instant decision was not taken by the Regional Transport Authority concerned, in exercise of its power of review, but really the decision was taken for duly implementing the recommendations of the said Banerjee Commission. 10. As recorded earlier, it is the definite case of the Respondents that the instant decision was not taken by the Regional Transport Authority concerned, in exercise of its power of review, but really the decision was taken for duly implementing the recommendations of the said Banerjee Commission. It is also the definite case of the Respondents that such decision was taken because of public agitations and in fact if such a decisions was not taken there was every possibility of breach of peace. Mr. Basu appearing for the Respondents, in his usual fairness, stated that the earlier resolutions could not be implemented or such implementation became impossible because of public agitations. Thus, on the arguments as advanced by the Respondents, it is clear that it was not a case of correction of clerical errors or mistakes by the authority and when the review in the instant case was not done under such permissible grounds, I am of the view that the Respondent, Regional Transport Authority, on application of the principles as mentioned above, had no right or authority to review its earlier resolution of 30th September 1974 as confirmed on 25th November 1974 and the more so when the enhanced fare of 00.4 paise per kilometer was implemented on and from 1st December 1974. Mr. Basu further submitted with reference to section 48 (3) (xii) of the said Act and the determinations in the case of (4) P. K. Karthikevan v. Regional Transport Authority, Trichur, AIR 1966 Kerala 137, that the fixation of fare table containing the fare stages is not a condition of a permit and such act of fixation by the Regional Transport Authorities are administrative acts and as such those Authorities cannot be deemed to be acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial manner and so the arguments as advanced by Mr. Moitra, on the question of the power of review of the Regional Transport Authorities, would not be available. Moitra, on the question of the power of review of the Regional Transport Authorities, would not be available. To support the administrative nature and character of the functions of the Regional Transport Authorities, reliance was also placed on the case of (5) Shib Prasad Mondal v. The State of W. B. & Ors, AIR 1959 Calcutta 543, wherein it has been observed that the Regional Transport Authorities carry out duties which are administrative but in certain respect of a quasi-judicial nature and therefore when they find that an order has been made inadvertently, overlooking that the law had meanwhile been changed, they can review the same and rectify the mistake. It has also been observed that since administrative bodies sometimes carry out quasi-judicial functions there is an implied power to rectify such mistakes and it is not to be considered with the same strictness and formality as a review in a purely judicial proceeding. The above determination in my view would not in any event help or support the contentions of the Respondents, on the question of exercise of the power of review, because the grounds for such review, particulars whereof have been mentioned hereinbefore, are something different from those as specified in the said determination and the more so when no case has been made out either for rectifying any mistake or for any change of law. 11. It has been held in the Full Bench decision of (6) Moti Lal & Ors. v. The Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh, & Ors. AIR 1951 Allahabad 257, that the Regional Transport Authority is a quasi-judicial body and the same view has also been expressed in the case of (7) Narendra Kumar Das & Ors. v. The Appellate Board Transport, Assam, Shillong & Ors., AIR 1960 Assam 100. v. The Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh, & Ors. AIR 1951 Allahabad 257, that the Regional Transport Authority is a quasi-judicial body and the same view has also been expressed in the case of (7) Narendra Kumar Das & Ors. v. The Appellate Board Transport, Assam, Shillong & Ors., AIR 1960 Assam 100. Furthermore, when the said Act has empowered the Regional Transport Authority, not being a Court in the ordinary sence, to decide disputes arising out of a claim or counter claim under the statute and to determine the respective rights of the parties, who ant opposed to each other, in terms of the decision in the case of (8) P. L. Lakhanpal v. Union of India, AIR 1967 S. C. 1507, the Regional Transport Authorities should also be deemed to have to discharge quasi-judicial functions, since there is a lis and prima facie in the absence of anything in the statute to the contrary it will be the duty of the Regional Transport Authorities to act judicially and their decisions would be an act of quasi-judicial nature. In view of the above, I am also of the view that the Regional Transport Authorities have quasi-judicial functions and obligations and furthermore, in view of their workings, powers, duties and obligations they cannot be mere administrative bodies. In view of the above, the arguments of Mr. Basu on the administrative nature and character of the order as suggested would fail and it must be held that the power which was exercised in the instant case by the Regional Transport Authority concerned, in having the subsequent resolution dated 19th December 1974 (Annexure D) passed, was in effect an act reviewing its earlier resolution and as such the same was unauthorised as the said Regional Transport Authority had or has no power of review. 12. In view of the above this application must succeed and the Rule is thus made absolute. There will however be no order for costs. 13. Let a writ of Mandamus be issued commanding the Respondents not to give effect or any further effect or to act on the basis of the said impugned resolution in Annexure "D". 14. It must also be recorded that since Mr. Moitra has not ultimately argued the point that Regional Transport Authorities have no right to fix stage carriage fares, no determination on that point has been made by me. 14. It must also be recorded that since Mr. Moitra has not ultimately argued the point that Regional Transport Authorities have no right to fix stage carriage fares, no determination on that point has been made by me. 15. I must further record that participation of the petitioners or any one of them in the connected proceeding, as suggested and argued by Mr. Basu, would not be a bar in maintaining the application, as the exercise of the power of review by such authority in the instant case was unauthorised, irregular and void abinitio. It has also been rightly argued by Mr. Moitra that if fares once fixed, are allowed to be changed in the manner and for the circumstances which has been done in this cases, then for all times to come, irrespective of the change in circumstances, fares would not be changed and to have a Commission for having the necessary recommendations would be useless.