ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE above appeal arises out of an order of disposal of a writ petition passed by the learned Judge on December 16, 1999 in W. P. No. 1503 (W) of 1999. The appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are Government officials whereas the appellant No. 3 is a private individual. ( 2 ) THE appellant No. 1 was the District Magistrate of Midnapore at the relevant time and was the ex officio Chairman of the Regional Transport authority, Midnapore (hereinafter referred to as RTA, Midnapore" ). The appellant No. 2 was also the District Magistrate, Midnapore for the subsequent period and the ex officio Chairman of the RTA, Midnapore during his tenure as district Magistrate. The appellant No. 3 was the Secretary of the RTA, midnapore at the relevant period. The appellant No. 3 was a private individual and a Government nominee to the RTA, Midnapore. The respondent being an unemployed youth purchased a bus. ( 3 ) ON or about 11th November, 1998 a public notice was posted on the notice board of RTA, Midnapore inviting application for grant of 10 temporary permits for the route Haldia to Mechada Railway Station and 6 temporary permits for haldia to Kukrahati Gate. In pursuance of such invitation the respondent being an unemployed youth applied for a route permit on November 17, 1998. The writ petitioner came to know that in a meeting held on December 24,1998 his application was rejected by the RTA, Midnapore. He was surprised to learn that the RTA, Midnapore while rejecting his application granted permits to others who were not even having any bus in their possession. He also came to learn that the permits were also granted to the owners of the concerned buses that were being plyed in other routes. He applied for certified copy of the resolution, which was denied to him. He approached this Court by way of an earlier writ petition being W. P. No. 6150 (W) of 1999 wherein the respondent no. 4 being the Secretary of RTA, Midnapore appeared personally before the single Judge on July 12,1999. He applied for certified copy of the resolution, which was denied to him. He approached this Court by way of an earlier writ petition being W. P. No. 6150 (W) of 1999 wherein the respondent no. 4 being the Secretary of RTA, Midnapore appeared personally before the single Judge on July 12,1999. The Secretary submitted that he took charge in march, 1999 as Secretary of the RTA, Midnapore and in January, 1999 a meeting was held while some of the applications received against the subject notification were considered and rest of the applications would be considered in a meeting to be held in the month of July, 1999. The learned Single Judge expressed his displeasure for having consideration of the application in lots. However, the said writ application was disposed of by directing the RTA, Midnapore to consider and decide the remaining applications as quickly as possible and not later than 1st August, 1999 Thereafter by communication dated July 30, 1999, the secretary, RTA, Midnapore being the appellant No. 4 communicated to the petitioner the context of the resolution of RTA, Midnapore in a meeting held on july 22,1999. In the said meeting it was resolved that as vacancy did not exist on those routes and as there was no public demand for more bus on the aforesaid routes the applications were all rejected. ( 4 ) CHALLENGING the said resolution dated July 22, 1999 the present writ petition was filed by the respondent/writ petitioner/the appellant No. 2 filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it was stated that in terms of the notifications dated November 11, 1998 RTA, Midnapore received 117 applications. The meeting was held on November 24, 1999 and 10 successful candidates were issued offer letters. Although the said notification stipulated that temporary permits would be issued the concerned authority issued 10 permanent permits out of the said 117 applicants. It was further stated that as the authority realised that the temporary permits could not be granted a further notification was issued on May 20,1999 and 9 more permanent permits were granted in favour of the intending operators. Lastly the appellant No. 2 tendered apology for the acts and omissions which were caused by him which, according to him, were not done willfully or deliberately. Lastly the appellant No. 2 tendered apology for the acts and omissions which were caused by him which, according to him, were not done willfully or deliberately. The learned Judge considered the resolution on merits and ultimately held that there had been irregularities and illegalities galore as recorded by the learned Judge in his order in question. Ultimately, the learned Judge directed RTA, Midnapore to reconsider each of those 117 applications for permanent permit once again in accordance with law. The learned Judge also directed each of the members being the appellants herein to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each personally to the Government of West Bengal. The learned Judge also considered the conduct of the appellant No. 4 and observed that he mislead this Court on July 12, 1999 by making an untrue statement and directed him to pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Registrar General, appellate Side, High Court, Calcutta. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order the present appeal had been filed by the 4 appellants. ( 6 ) MR. Debabrata Roy Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Judge did not have jurisdiction to award damage of Rs. 10,000/- each as against the appellants without giving them appropriate opportunity to defend themselves. Mr. Roy Chowdhury further contended that the learned Judge should not have awarded cost as against the appellant No. 4 for making untrue statement in Court without taking recourse to the appropriate procedure laid down under section 340 of the Code of Criminal procedure. ( 7 ) WE have considered the issue raised before us. We have also perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge in detail. It is true that the learned Judge used the word "damage" while directing members of the RTA, Midnapore board to pay Rs. 10,000/- each to the State corpus. In our view, the same was nothing but penalty imposed on the said appellants for their wrongful conduct as briefly recorded hereinbefore and more particularly described in the order under appeal. By such direction for payment of Rs. 10,000/- each to the State corpus the writ petitioner was n,ot benefited as such question of awarding damage did not arise. Hence, the contention of Mr. Roy Chowdhury on that score is not tenable. Similarly, the imposition of cost on the appellant No. 4 for Rs. By such direction for payment of Rs. 10,000/- each to the State corpus the writ petitioner was n,ot benefited as such question of awarding damage did not arise. Hence, the contention of Mr. Roy Chowdhury on that score is not tenable. Similarly, the imposition of cost on the appellant No. 4 for Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the Registrar General, Appellate Side, High Court, Calcutta was also by way of penalty. All the appellants were parties to the said writ proceedings. They were granted opportunity to defend themselves by filing affidavits. Some of the appellants filed affidavits and explained their conduct. The learned Judge was, however, not satisfied with the such explanation. ( 8 ) WRIT proceeding is entertained by the High Courts in equitable jurisdiction. If any Government Authority acts in derogation of the power conferred upon them or omits to act in accordance with law, in my considered opinion, the high Court is well within its power to impose such penalty on the said respondents. So long the authorities act in accordance with law while discharging their statutory functions they are protected in law. If any authority deliberately acted wrongfully and illegally it was their act in personem and the State was not responsible for such misconduct. In the instant case respondent/writ petitioner was not properly treated at par with the other applicants. The appellants on behalf of the State were duty bound to act in accordance with law for their wrongful act. If the learned Judge imposed cost upon the State that would have been an injustice to the State. State functions through bureaucrats and the authorities prescribed in the statute. Be it Government official or be it private individual nominated for the said purpose. The State is duty bound to prevent its officials for any anticipated damage for their acts done in accordance with law in usual course of business and not responsible for their misdeeds. ( 9 ) AN attempt was made by Mr. Roy Chowdhury to defend the appellants by contending that there was no definite policy under which the applications were to be considered. It is true that the State was incumbent to formulate its policy in all respect including the matter of grant of permits. ( 9 ) AN attempt was made by Mr. Roy Chowdhury to defend the appellants by contending that there was no definite policy under which the applications were to be considered. It is true that the State was incumbent to formulate its policy in all respect including the matter of grant of permits. At the same time it did not empower the authorities to pick and choose and favour some of the applicants for extraneous consideration without following the general principles of law. When the authorities invited applications and 117 applicants responded to such invitation it was incumbent upon the authorities to consider each of them at par without any discrimination. While doing so if there is any bona fide mistake the authorities are immune from any damage. In the instant case, no explanation far to speak of "plausible" could be given by the authorities as recorded by the learned Single Judge in his order. If the learned Single Judge merely quashed the decision of the RTA, Midnapore by directing them to consider afresh it would have been not sufficient. If the authority does not act within the framework of the power granted to them by the statute or the Constitution the Court is within its right to deal with them properly so that such mistake is not repeated. ( 10 ) WE must record our strong displeasure to the conduct of the appellants while dealing with the said 117 applicants. The learned Judge should have been more strict while dealing with those erring officials. Be that as it may, imposition of cost of Rs. 10,000/- each is merely a petence compared to the gross illegality committed by the appellants. ( 11 ) IN the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant would pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant (sic respondent) within a period of 2 weeks from date. Since the order of the learned Judge was stayed by the division Bench by an order dated January 14, 2000 we once again direct the appellants to pay the cost or damage, as the case may be, as directed by the learned Single Judge within a period of 2 weeks from date. ( 12 ) BEFORE parting with we may record the continued illegality perpetrated in the instant case. ( 12 ) BEFORE parting with we may record the continued illegality perpetrated in the instant case. When the appeal was initially moved this Court granted stay of operation of the order to the extent which directed damages and cost to be paid. The other part of the order of the learned Single Judge which directed re-consideration of the issue afresh, was not stayed. We asked specific question to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants as to whether they had complied with that part of the order of the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants on instruction could not make any definite assertion on that issue. It is high time that the hierarchy of the State should take steps against those erring officials for their continued wrongful conduct. ( 13 ) LET a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Ministry for their information and necessary action. ( 14 ) URGENT xerox certified copy would be given to the parties, if applied for. Appeal dismissed with cost.