M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER in this writ petition has. prayed for (1) a writ of cetiorari quashing the grant of permit in favour of the fourth respondent dated 9-6-1966 as well as the order dated 2-5-68 in Appeal No. 788 of 1966 and connected matters! together with the order made in Review No. 92 of 1981 on the file of the first-respondent karnataka Appellate Tribunal (2) issue of a writ of mandamus to respondent 3 to consider his application in response to the notification under S. 57 (2) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939 and (3) to grant to him an Inter State permit on being satisfied with the conditions mentioned in the reciprocal agreement. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to this petition may brisfly be stated as follows: Petitioner is a stage carriage operator in the State of Karnataka. So is respondent 4. Petitioner, (he. fourth respondent and several others were applicants for a permit for a stage carriage permit on the route : Bangalore to Tirupathi via Krishnarajapura etc. Fourth respondent was granted per mit by the third respondent RTA, Bangalore, by its resolution dated 9 3-1966. That grant was challenged by the rival applicants as well as the objectors before the first respondent Tribunal (formerely revenue Appellate Tribunal ). The petitioner herein was one of the appellants having filed Appeal No. 1296 of 1970. That appeal came to be dismissed by the appellate Tribunal for non-prosecution as the petitioner herein repeatedly took adjournments refusing to submit arguments in the case. That order of dismissal was challenged in WP NO. J926 of 1981 in this Court, Jagament Shetty, J, rejected the writ petition having regard to the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the petitioner before the Tribunal. He, however acceded to the request of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in that writ petition to make certain observations to the effect that if the petitioner tendered an apology to the tribunal aud moved the Tribunal for review of the order of dismissal, the Tribunal was free to consider such an application notwithstanding that the writ petition was rejected. Thereafter, a review application was presented before the Tribunal and also an affidavit a part of which was devoted to tender an apology to the tribunal in respect of the conduct of the petitioner csrlier in prosecuting Appeal no 1296/70. Thereafter, a review application was presented before the Tribunal and also an affidavit a part of which was devoted to tender an apology to the tribunal in respect of the conduct of the petitioner csrlier in prosecuting Appeal no 1296/70. The Tribunal in its order dated 2-6-1981 rejected that review application on the ground that the petitioner had not made out a case of error apparent on the face of the record. Nor was any strong or sufficient reason for reviewing the order was shown. The Tribunal in its latter order also observed that the petitioner was not interested in addressing arguments on the basis of the available record. In other words, it is reasonable to infer that when the review was moved before the Appellate Tribunai, the Tribunal offcred to hear arguments on merits and the petitioner apparently refused to sub- mil arguments. Aggrieved by this latter order rejecting review, the present petition isprefered consolidating his prayers for quashing the grant of permit; for setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and for a mandamus to consider his application and grant to him the permit. ( 3 ) THE last mentioned prayer cannot be granted. At best he had only a right to have his application considered but not for a direction that he shouid be granted a permit. In any event the other parts of the prayer also cannot be granted because that permit has been granted to someone else, ( 4 ) IN so far as the consolidated prayer is concerned, T am unable to see how the resolution of the Regional Transport authority granting the permit can be set aside when, so far as the petitioner is concerned, it has reached finality by the dismissal of his Appeal No. 1296 of 1970. ( 5 ) WHAT really survives for consideration is whether the Karnataka Appellate tribunal first respondent herein-was justified in rejecting the review petition. Assuming that this Court were to find that the order made in review was not tenable, what remains to be done is to issue a direction to the tribunal to dispose of that appeal and no more. ( 5 ) WHAT really survives for consideration is whether the Karnataka Appellate tribunal first respondent herein-was justified in rejecting the review petition. Assuming that this Court were to find that the order made in review was not tenable, what remains to be done is to issue a direction to the tribunal to dispose of that appeal and no more. But the question is, having regard to the history of the case, whether this Court should hold that the order made in review is not tenable, ( 6 ) SRI S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously argued that notwithstanding the past history, the Tribunal, once an apology was tendered, ought to have looked into the grounds urged in the affidavit filed along with the apology and con ;ider them as arguments advanced and recall the earlier order of dismissal and restore the appeal to file and dispose it of on merits. 1 am unable to accede to that contention. The karnataka Appellate tribunal Act, 1976, which provides for review under S. 8 is as follows :-"8. Power of Review :- (1) The Tribunal may, either on its own motion or on the application of any party affected, review any order passed by itself and pass such orders with reference thereto as it deems necessary : provided that no such application shall be entertained unless the Tribunal is satisfied that there has been discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not with in the knowledge of such party or could not be produced by him or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or that there has been any other sufficient reason :provided further that -. . . . . . . . The last ground in the first proviso should be construed in such a way to mean that sufficient reason must be analogous to what has been enumerated before in the proviso. It cannot be so construed as to mean that for any other reason the Tribunal may review the order. Other sufficient reason must be something which constitutes patent illegality or similar legal defect in the order which is sought to be reviewed. It cannot be so construed as to mean that for any other reason the Tribunal may review the order. Other sufficient reason must be something which constitutes patent illegality or similar legal defect in the order which is sought to be reviewed. When this Court made an observation in WP No. 1296 of 1981, to the effect that the Tribunal was free to review if it deemed fit to do so notwithstanding the fact that the writ petition was rejected, it only meant that review should be in accordance with law and not otherwise. It cannot be construed as having conferred jurisdiction on the Tribunal to review the order on grounds other than the ones provided for in the proviso to S. 8 of the karnataka Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976. ( 7 ) SRI S. K. Venkataranga lyengar has not been able to point out any infirmity which can be called as legal infirmity in the order made on the review petition impug ed. ( 8 ) IN the result, this writ petition is rejected without rule being issued. --- *** --- .