R. K. PATRA, J. ( 1 ) IN a lottery system when there is an element of chance or luck, is the Regional Transport Authority, Cuttack justified in proposing to dispose of the applications received from the intending operators for grant of stage carriage permits through lottery process? This is the moot question that arises for consideration in this writ petition filed by one of the intending operators to operate her vehicle (Bus) on cuttack-Paradeep route when the seeks to assail the notice No. 3910 dated 13-8-2002 at Annexure 1. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the case of the petitioner is that she applied for grant of permit on 15-12-1995 for operation of her bus bearing registration number OR-04-6075 as express Service on Cuttack-Paradeep route. The Regional Transport Authority (in brief 'rta') duly received it but instead of disposing of the case in merit in accordance with law, has kept It pending without passing any order thereon. She approached the concerned authority on many occasions but her request to consider her application was not fruitful. When the matter stood thus, she was surprised to find the impugned notice bearing number 3010 dated 13-8-2002 issued by the RTA, Cuttack indicating that the applications mentioned therein including that of the petitioner would be considered through "lottery process" on 16-92002 along with other applications to be received in response to another notice No. 3907 dated 13-8-2002 (Annexure 2 ). According to the petitioner, such decision to dispose of the applications on the basis of lottery is unauthorised and totally out-side the purview of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'}. ( 3 ) THE opposite parties have not filed any counter justifying its decision in response to the rule issued in the matter, learned standing Counsel, however, submitted that consideration of applications by "lottery process" would exclude favouritism or nepotism. ( 4 ) IN order to get hang of the issue involved, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Act. since the present case relates to stage carriage permit, we may new refer to Section 71 of the Act which lays down the procedure in considering the applications for stage carriage permit by the RTA. ( 4 ) IN order to get hang of the issue involved, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Act. since the present case relates to stage carriage permit, we may new refer to Section 71 of the Act which lays down the procedure in considering the applications for stage carriage permit by the RTA. Clause (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 71 provides that R. T. A. shall in considering the applications have regard to the following matters, namely (I) financial stability of the applicant; (II) satisfactory performance as stage carriage operator including payment of tax if the applicant is or has been an operator of stage carriage service; and (III) such other matters as may be prescribed by the State Government; provided that, other conditions being equal preference shall be given to applications for permit from (i) State transport undertakings; (ii) Co-operative societies registered or deemed to have been registered under any enactment for the time being in force; or (iii) ex-servicemen. Section 72 of the Act provides that subject to the provisions of Section 71. the R. T. A. may on an application made to it under Section 70. grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit. Sub-section (1) of Section 80 states that an application for permit of any kind may be made at any time. Subsection (2) of Section 80 lays down that a r. T. A. shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under the Act provided further that where a R. T. A. refuses an application for the grant of permit of any kind, it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal of the same and an opportunity of being heard in the matter. ( 5 ) THERE is no dispute that the R. T. A. is a quasi judicial functionary and is required to consider and deal with the applications in accordance with law. It is required to decide the Us between or amongst the competing applicants. In considering the merits of the applications, it has to keep in view the interest of the public generally. Competition amongst the Intending operators is a competition for efficiency. This being the legal position, the R. T. A. . It is required to decide the Us between or amongst the competing applicants. In considering the merits of the applications, it has to keep in view the interest of the public generally. Competition amongst the Intending operators is a competition for efficiency. This being the legal position, the R. T. A. . Cuttack has clearly fallen into error in abdicating the quasi judicial power vested in it to the facts of the outcome of lottery system. Such a procedure adopted by it is wholly foreign to the scheme of the Act. ( 6 ) IT is an undisputed fact that in a lottery method, element of chance or luck is inherent and is within the boundaries of gambling. Its consequences are pernicious because by sheer luck an intending applicant whose financial stability is in the doldrums, or whose performance as a stage carriage operator is unsatisfactory or who is in arrears in the matter of payment of tax might come out as a successful applicant in the "lottery process". ( 7 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, we have so hesitation to hold that the decision of the r. T. A. communicated in the impugned notice no. 2910 dated 13-8-2002 (Annexure (1) and the subsequent notice No. 2907 dated 13-8-2002 (Annexure 2) to consider all the applications through "lottery process" is illegal and unauthorised. Consequently, the impugned notices (Annexures 1 and 2) so far as they relate to consideration of the applications by way of "lottery process" are hereby quashed. The R. T. A. , Cuttack will consider and dispose of all the applications pending before it in accordance with law by the 31st of October, 2002. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ( 8 ) I agree. Petition allowed.