JUDGMENT The writ petitioners are bus operators on route No. S-133 starting from Haridevpur to Dum Dum Park. 2. Their real grievance is that the route is not economically viable and one of the main reasons is the unauthorised occupation of B.L. Saha Road by Hawkers and Vendors. 3. Thereupon, two earlier writs were filed, one was filed by the Bus Owners and the other was filed by the Commuters Association. The writs resulted in two orders, roughly separated by a gap of one year. In both the writs the Regional Transport Authority was directed to take a decision as to the re-alignment, curtailment, extension or otherwise change of the allegedly economically non-viable routes. 4. It appears from the 1st Annexure to the writ petition that a decision was made on or about 10th September, 1997, before one month elapsed after the second order was passed in the latter of the two earlier writs. The decision was partly final and partly interim. By the final decision the Regional Transport Authority rejected certain particular prayers of alignment or curtailment. 5. The decision was of an interim nature in this regard that the Regional Transport Authority sought to constitute a Committee for considering the variation or change of alignment of the routes. 6. Mr. De appearing for the writ petitioners has challenged the decision of the Regional Transport Authority. He has stated that the Constitution of the Committee by the Regional Transport Authority is outside the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and in any event the Court had directed the Regional Transport Authority itself to take a decision. Delegation of power by the Regional Transport Authority to a Committee, and that too with the workers of the Bus Owners to participate was impermissible. 7. Mr. De has also submitted that the final decision of rejection taken by the Regional Transport Authority is without reason. He has submitted that an administrative decision without reason is in supportable. 8. On behalf of the State respondents it was submitted that the writ is pre-mature because the, final decision has not yet been taken. It was also submitted that in regard to a writ the Bus Owners are not only the persons, but the Commuters have also a say in the matter. 9. Mr. De cited several authorities and showed many particular sections of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was also submitted that in regard to a writ the Bus Owners are not only the persons, but the Commuters have also a say in the matter. 9. Mr. De cited several authorities and showed many particular sections of the Motor Vehicles Act. In so far as his points regarding administrative or quasi-judicial infirmities are concerned, I agree with Mr. De that those points are available to properly aggrieved writ petitioners. A person who has to decide by reason of some authority vested in him, usually has to decide by himself and not to make a delegation, on which he will rely fully either blindly or partly blindly. Again, it is now well-settled that the non-giving of reasons is an administrative infirmity and is violative of the principles of natural Justice. 10. But the writ petition suffers from a basic defect. The two earlier orders passed by this Court in the two earlier writs having become final in the matter of the grievances regarding the economically non-viability of the route, the only question now raised is whether those two earlier orders have, been properly complied with or not. If the consideration by the Regional Transport Authority by Constitution of a Committee or by reasonless rejection is an insufficient compliance, and not an appropriate step for the purpose of fun compliance with the two orders of the Court earlier passed, then the writ petitioner can ventilate their grievances in a contempt proceeding and not by way of a fresh writ like the present one. It must be borne in mind that the writ Court cannot be the executing Court of the earlier orders passed by the Court. For the above preliminary and extremely basic points the writ application is hereby rejected. Rule, if any, stands discharged. Interim order, if any, stands immediately, vacated. There will be no order as to costs.