JUDGMENT 1. THE writ petitioner made an application for a permanent permit on the Haldia - Banipada route and the same was rejected sometime in September 1988 because the writ petitioner had been selected in one of the vacancies that existed in an inter state route (West Bengal - Orissa) between Calcutta and Singhpur. 2. THE West Bengal authorities had selected in two vacancies four candidates, thus trying to split up the permit. According to the Orissa authorities there existed but two vacancies for the West Bengal authorities to fill up and as such the Orissa authorities did not countersign all the permits issued by the West Bengal Transport Authorities. The writ petitioner is one such candidate whose application succeeded in West Bengal, but did not succeed in producing the counter signature in Orissa. 3. MR. Ashoke Dey, the learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner, has submitted that two similarly constituted bodies or persons viz. On Roadways and Sajal Kumar Maity have been successful in getting orders from this court for a compulsory direction upon the West Bengal Transport Authorities for grant of a permit to them as their application, though granted in West Bengal, did not ultimately become at all fruitful. 4. MR. Dey has, therefore, submitted that I should follow similar course and select one of the five alternative routes mentioned by him and direct the transport authorities to give his client a permit to run his bus on the said route. Mr. Dey has relied upon, what he termed the doctrine of legitimate expectation. It is said to be a new doctrine of Administrative Law. He has relied upon the text book of Mr. Clive Lewis (Judicial Remedies in Public Law, 1992) and has also referred to pages 96 and 97 of the said book. 5. MR. Dey has also referred, for substantiating the basis of the said doctrine, to the case of Navjyoti Co-Group Housing Society v. Union of India,reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court; page 115. 6. I do not understand how the said doctrine of legimate expectation is to be applied to the administrative bodies in this matter. The STA or the RTA has not acted in any manner in their administrative capacities by the use of their administrative discretion either in the case of Om Roadways or in the case of Sajal Kumar Maity. 6. I do not understand how the said doctrine of legimate expectation is to be applied to the administrative bodies in this matter. The STA or the RTA has not acted in any manner in their administrative capacities by the use of their administrative discretion either in the case of Om Roadways or in the case of Sajal Kumar Maity. They have been compelled so to act by orders of court. I dare say there is no doctrine of legitimate expectation in regard to the different judges passing different orders in separate matters, and the ways one judge can bind another in the matter of discharge of judicial duties must either be, by the doctrine of res judicata or by such other comparatively diluted doctrines, as those of binding precedents, or doctrines analogous to those resjudicata, or the principle of avoidance of a conflict of decisions. There is no scope for introduction of any new idea of- legitimate expectation in the matter of judges so as to compel them to pass similar types of orders. For my part. I do not see how the writ petitioner's application being unsuccessful in one route, the same can entitle him automatically to a selection in some other route whether on a permanent or on a temporary basis. There shall, accordingly, he no interim order in this application. However, the pendency or the writ, on this order, will naturally not prevent the writ petitioner from making an application to any route of his choice for any type of permit of his own choice, or prevent the authorities from disposing of the same in accordance with the law. 7. THE respondents have appeared. No rule need be drawn up or served. Affidavit in opposition is to be filed within four weeks. Affidavit in reply is to be filed within two weeks thereafter. The matter will appear for "final Hearing" the working day following. 8. ALL parties and others concerned are to act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking. Petition disposed of.