BINOD KUMAR ROY AND LAKSHMI BIHARI, JJ. ( 1 ) FOLLOWING two questions crop up for our consideration (i) whether the writ petitioner, who is party to a writ proceeding instituted by respondent No. 3 before the Lucknow Bench of the Court in which a stay order has been passed adverse to him, can claim any relief from the Principal bench of the Court at Allahabad through this writ petition? and (ii) whether the stay order passed by the Lucknow Bench is without jurisdiction, null and void and nullity on the ground that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition of respondent No. 3. ( 2 ) FIRSTLY, very briefly the facts giving rise to this writ petition, filed on 16. 4. 1991. Vide the resolution dated 4. 12. 1985 of the Regional Transport Authority, Jhansi, which considered the applications filed for grant of 4 permanent stage carriage permits for the route Lalitpur-Jhakora via Rajghat for which the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 and others were applicants, one of the three permits was granted to respondent No. 3 and one was reserved for Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe applicant. Against the aforementioned Resolution, the petitioner went up in appeal No. 61 of 1986 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. U. P. Lucknow, which has not been impleaded as a party-respondent. By order dated 10. 12. 1990 (as contained In annexure-2), the petitioners appeal was allowed by granting permit to him though subject to certain conditions. Respondent No. 3 filed Writ Petition No. 13149 of 1990 for quashing the order dated 10. 12. 1990 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal before the Lucknow Bench of this Court impleading the petitioner herein as respondent No. 7. He also filed Civil Misc. Application No. 22880 (W) of 1990 for grant of interim relief. The matter came up for consideration before the Lucknow Bench of the Court on 20. 12. 1990. A learned single Judge of the Lucknow Bench issued notices to the respondents of the said writ petition and directed stay of the operation of the order dated 10. 12. 1990 passed by the Tribunal In the meanwhile. Pursuant to the aforementioned order, the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority. Jhansl (respondent No. 2) sent letter R. T. A. / P. S. T. V. 900/90 dated 26. 12. 12. 1990 passed by the Tribunal In the meanwhile. Pursuant to the aforementioned order, the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority. Jhansl (respondent No. 2) sent letter R. T. A. / P. S. T. V. 900/90 dated 26. 12. 1990 to the petitioner stating that since this Court had stayed the operation of the order of the State Transport Appellate tribunal, hence you are directed to deposit in his office the permit granted to you and stop the operation of vehicle No. UTV-1469 on the strength of the said permit. The petitioner has come up with a prayer to quash the aforementioned letter appending its copy as Annexure-11 stating, inter alia that on the basis of the order dated 10. 12. 1990 of the Tribunal, a permit was issued to him on 19. 12. 1990 and on 20. 12. 1990 he had commenced operating his vehicle on the strength of that permit and. accordingly, the order passed by the Lucknow Bench was not applicable, a certified copy of which was served on respondent No. 2 on 21. 12. 1990 ; and that the order of this court was not an order of injunction but merely an order staying the operation of the order of the appellate Tribunal which having been given effect to, nothing remained to be stayed by the transport Authority, who could only perform a ministerial act. The petitioner also filed an application for staying the operation of the direction contained in the impugned letter. The writ petition as well as the application for grant of interim relief both were placed before a Division bench on 18. 4. 1991. The writ petition was admitted and notices were Issued in regard to the writ petition as well as miscellaneous application stating that till further orders operation of the communication dated 26. 12. 1990 of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. Jhansi. in so far as it pertains to the petitioner, shall remain stayed. Respondent No. 3 filed a petitioner for vacating the interim order dated 18. 4. 1991 along with a counter-affidavit stating, inter alia, that the petitioner had already filed his counter-affidavit in his Writ Petition No. 13149 of 1990 but the stay order passed therein has not been vacated till date and the Instant writ petition has been filed. In effect, to get the order dated 20. 12. 4. 1991 along with a counter-affidavit stating, inter alia, that the petitioner had already filed his counter-affidavit in his Writ Petition No. 13149 of 1990 but the stay order passed therein has not been vacated till date and the Instant writ petition has been filed. In effect, to get the order dated 20. 12. 1990 passed therein to be set aside/ vacated making identical allegations already made by him in Writ Petition No. 13149 of 1990 and thus the instant writ petition is neither entertainable nor can any order passed in it ; and that the interim order dated 18. 4. 1991 passed in the Instant writ petition be vacated. ( 3 ) HAVING heard Sri A. D. Saunders. learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Devendra Pratap. learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Sri P. K. Bisaria. learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, we have no hesitation in answering both questions in negative. The lucknow Bench as well as the Principal Bench both exercise one and the same constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 and thus the Principal Bench of this Court cannot issue a direction contrary to what has already been issued earlier through Us Lucknow Bench to which the petitioner is a party and is thus binding on him unless it is set aside and/or rescinded and he cannot challenge it collaterally through this writ petition as what cannot be done directly, cannot be done even indirectly. ( 4 ) WE also do not find any substance in the argument of Sri Saunders that the order of stay passed by the Lucknow Bench is nullity/void ab initio in view of the fact that it did not lack territorial jurisdiction to pass order in relation to orders passed by the State Transport Appellate tribunal, Lucknow, which is under challenge by respondent No. 3 before the Lucknow Bench of the Court. The law declared by the Supreme Court in Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 311, is crystal clear in this regard which was reiterated in V. P. Rashtriya chini Mill Adhikari Parishad v. State of U. P. . AIR 1995 SC 2148 . From the ratio laid down therein, there is no doubt that the Lucknow Bench of the Court has territorial jurisdiction. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, this writ petition is dismissed. AIR 1995 SC 2148 . From the ratio laid down therein, there is no doubt that the Lucknow Bench of the Court has territorial jurisdiction. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, this writ petition is dismissed. ( 6 ) BEFORE parting, it is clarified that this judgment and order shall not stand in the way of the petitioner in contesting on merits the Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 3 before the Lucknow bench in which interim orders was passed. ( 7 ) LET the office serve a copy of this order within one week on Sri Bisaria. learned standing counsel, for its intimation to the authority concerned. .