R. A. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER has been granted a permanent stage carriage permit on Bareilly-Budaun-Usawan route by the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly by a resolution dated 22-12-1989. This permit could not be issued to the petitioner in view of the orders passed by the Civil Court in various suits, reference of which has been made to a letter of the Secretary R. T. A. dated 18-1-1990, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure II to the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has accordingly filed this writ petition for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of Civil Court and for a writ of mandamus directing the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly and its secretary to issue him permit in pursuance of the order of grant after ignoring the order passed by the Civil Court. ( 3 ) AT the time when this writ petition was filed, this Court passed the following order:--"list this petition for admission on 2/04/1990. Until further orders, the operation of the order passed in suit No. 92 of 1984 (Om Prakash Rastogi and other v. Mahabir Singh and others) shall not come in the way of R. T. A. in issuing the permit to the petitioners. Since the petitioner was not party to that suit. In suit No. 532 of 1989 and 9 of 1990 the route was different and, therefore, any interim order passed in the above two suits shall also not come in the way of the RTA in issuing the permit. However, this order is subject to the condition that the route for which the permit was granted is not covered by any notified scheme under Section 68d (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. " ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS have now filed a counter-affidavit and we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the writ petition is being finally disposed of in accordance with the rules of the Court. ( 5 ) MOTOR Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder have provided for grant of permits and have laid down elaborate procedure to be followed by the transport authorities while granting permits. Orders of the transport authorities are liable to be challenged before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by way of appeal or revision and orders of the Appellate Tribunal have been made final. Orders of the transport authorities are liable to be challenged before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by way of appeal or revision and orders of the Appellate Tribunal have been made final. Motor Vehicles Act under which permits are granted has not only laid down elaborate procedure to be followed by transport authorities while granting permits but has also provided the forum for determining the question pertaining thereto and the order so passed by the appellate Tribunal have been made final. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court accordingly stands excluded and it is not open to the Civil Court to interfere in the matter of grant of permits by the transport authorities under Motor Vehicles Act. A Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2877 of 1977 (Omkar Singh v. Regional Transport Authority and another) has held that by implication the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to interfere in the matter relating to the grant of permits stands excluded. Section 94 of the Motor Vechiles Act, 1988, which expressly bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the matter relating go grant of permits in respect of any action taken or to be taken by a transport authority, is reproduced below:-"94. Bar of Jurisdiction of Civil Court. No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to the grant of a permit under this Act, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the duly constituted authorities under this Act with regard to the grant of a permit shall be entertained by any Civil Court. "civil Courts have no jurisdiction to issue injunction order not only in respect of the action already taken in the matter of grant of permit but they are also prohibited to issue preventive orders in connection therewith and the only situation in which the Civil Court can interfere in the matter of grant of permit is when the transport authorities, which had granted the permit or likely to grant permit are not duly constituted. The notification constituting Regional Transport Authority was placed before us and we do not find any infirmity in the constitution of the authority. Orders and decrees of the Civil Court restraining the transport authority from granting or issuing permit under Motor Vehicles Act are, as such, without authority of law. The notification constituting Regional Transport Authority was placed before us and we do not find any infirmity in the constitution of the authority. Orders and decrees of the Civil Court restraining the transport authority from granting or issuing permit under Motor Vehicles Act are, as such, without authority of law. We are surprised to find that in suit No. 92 of 1984 an ex parte decree was passed on 3-8-1984 by the learned Munsif, Hawali, Bareilly, issuing perpetual injunction restraining the transport authorities from granting and issuing permanent and temporary permits. If this decree is implemented in spite of the expressed provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the transport authorities can never grant permanent and temporary permit in future till eternity. Such a decree is absolutely without jurisdiction and outside the scope of the powers of the Civil Court. The orders, which are nullity and void ab nitio are liable to be ignored. ( 6 ) SRI V. K. S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the grant of permit to the petitioner is not in accordance with law. This question cannot be raised in this petition filed by the petitioner against the order of Civil Court. It is open to the respondents to raise these grounds in appropriate forum in accordance with law. ( 7 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed and the interim order passed by this Court on 26/03/1990 is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .