Judgement JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J. :- This mandamus appeal is directed against two orders dated 21st September, 2006 and 22nd February, 2007 both passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W. P. No. 1416 of 2006 at the instance of the appellants who were respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the writ petition. 2. Let me now consider as to how far the learned trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned orders in the facts of the instant case. 3. For proper appreciation of the dispute between the parties leading to filing of this appeal, short background of this case is given below :- (i) On 17th May, 2002 the petitioner applied for grant of permanent stage carriage (bus) permit under Section 69 read with Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in respect of the route from Howrah Station to Barrackpore. (ii) Since the petitioner's prayer for grant of such permit was not considered by the concerned authority in view of the notification dated 20th May, 2003 and the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 27th September, 2005 in FMA No. 604 of 2005 (Sujata Ganguly v. State of West Bengal), the writ petitioner moved a writ petition seeking various reliefs including for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities, their men, agents, servants and subordinates and each one of them to forbear from denying to issue an offer letter for grant of permanent stage carriage (bus) permit in respect of route Howrah Station to Barrackpore in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the application made by the petitioner on 17th May, 2002 and further for issuance of the writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents their men, agent, servants and/or subordinates and each one of them to forthwith issue an offer letter or grant of stage carriage permit (bus) in respect of route Howrah Station to Barrackpore in favour of the petitioner on the basis of his aforesaid application etc. (iii) In course of hearing of the said writ petition the petitioner submitted that though he applied for a permit to operate his vehicle originally from Howrah Station to Barrackpore but he is prepared to have a permit to operate his vehicle from Howrah new bus stand to Barrackpore. (iii) In course of hearing of the said writ petition the petitioner submitted that though he applied for a permit to operate his vehicle originally from Howrah Station to Barrackpore but he is prepared to have a permit to operate his vehicle from Howrah new bus stand to Barrackpore. Thus, by making such a submission for issuance of a permit in respect of a different route, the petitioner himself abandoned his original prayer for grant of stage carriage permit (bus) from Howrah Station to Barrackpore as made by him in his application dated 17th May, 2002. (iv) The learned trial Judge disposed of the said writ petition on 21st September, 2006 by directing the concerned authority to issue an offer letter in favour of the petitioner in respect of the modified route namely Howrah New Bus Stand to Barrackpore instead of the original route for which the permit was sought for by the petitioner in his application dated 17th May, 2002. The authorities were further directed to issue the permit in favour of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of compliance of the condition of the offer letter, by the petitioner. (v) Pursuant to the said order, a letter was issued to the petitioner on 22nd November, 2006 whereby the petitioner was requested to produce original receipt copy of the application dated 17th May, 2002 to the Secretary, STA West Bengal for his verification. The petitioner was also requested to submit a detailed alignment for the route of Howrah New Bus Stand to Barrackpore for issuance of offer letter. (vi) In reply to the said letter the petitioner submitted his original application for grant of permit dated 17th May, 2005 along with his letter dated 1st December, 2006 indicating therein the route alignment for which permit was sought for by the petitioner to ply his vehicle i.e. Howrah New Bus Stand to Barrackpore via Howrah Station, Howrah Bridge, Posta, Barabazar, Girish Park, Central Avenue, Shyambazar, B.T. Road, Sodepur, Titagarh, Barrackpore. (vii) On 15th December, 2006 an offer letter was issued by State Transport Authority in favour of the petitioner wherein it was indicated that the STA West Bengal, in its meeting held on 16th November, 2004, decided to grant a permanent stage carriage permit in favour of the petitioner for five years as per the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 in respect of the interregional route Howrah New Bus Stand to Barrackpore subject to acceptance of the offer within 30 days from the date of the offer letter and further upon compliance of the other requirements as mentioned in the offer letter within the said period. It was mentioned in the said offer letter that the said offer will automatically stand cancelled if the petitioner fails to fulfil the requirements as per the offer letter within the stipulated time. (viii) Admittedly, the petitioner did not fulfil the conditions as mentioned in the said offer letter. Instead of fulfilling the conditions as mentioned in the said offer letter the petitioner filed an application in the said disposed of writ petition giving rise to G.A. No. 139 of 2007 inter alia praying for modification of the earlier order passed by the learned trial Judge on 21st September, 2006 so that the petitioner is permitted to ply his vehicle within the route alignment as mentioned in his letter dated 1st December, 2006. (ix) The learned single Judge disposed of the said application on 22nd February, 2007 by modifying His Lordship's order to this extent that the writ petitioner will operate his vehicle on the route as mentioned in the earlier order dated 21st September, 2006 namely Howrah new bus stand to Barrackpore via Howrah Bridge, Barabazar, M. G. Road and Sealdah. The learned single Judge was further pleased to extend the validity of the offer letter for obtaining the consent of the petitioner for a further period of one month from the date of the order. 4. The propriety of those two orders passed by the learned single Judge is under challenge in this mandamus appeal at the instance of the State respondents. 5. 4. The propriety of those two orders passed by the learned single Judge is under challenge in this mandamus appeal at the instance of the State respondents. 5. A short question which has come up for consideration in this appeal is as to whether such a permit can be directed to be issued in favour of the petitioner for authorising him to ply his vehicle in the route as mentioned in the modified order passed by the learned single Judge in violation of the notification issued by the Government of West Bengal, Transport Department on 6th August, 2004 when the validity of such notification was upheld, by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the order dated 27th September, 2005 passed in FMA No. 604 of 2004 (Sujata Ganguly v. State of West Bengal). 6. The formulation of the aforesaid question gives clear indication that if the orders impugned in the instant appeal are found to be in conflict with the spirit of the decision of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court (Sujata Ganguly v. State of West Bengal) (supra), then the orders passed by the learned single Judge which are impugned in the instant appeal, cannot be maintained. 7. Let me now consider as to how far the orders passed by the learned single Judge are in conformity and/or in violation of the spirit of the aforesaid Division Bench decision of this Court. For proper appreciation of the said question the relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Sujata Ganguly v. State of West Bengal (supra) are set out hereunder :- 5.1 The State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authority of Calcutta and Howrah may issue stage carriage permits against offer letters already issued by the concerned authorities prior to the issue of the Notification No. 3438-WT/BM-139/ 2004, dated 2nd August, 2004 published on 6th August, 2004 subject however to the notification dated 20th May, 2003 issued under Section 71(3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. No offer letter or permit shall be issued in violation of the policy decision notified on 6th August, 2004. In cases where offer letters have been issued after 6th August, 2004 which violates the policy decision dated 6th August, 2004, no permit shall be granted in respect of such offer letters so issued. No offer letter or permit shall be issued in violation of the policy decision notified on 6th August, 2004. In cases where offer letters have been issued after 6th August, 2004 which violates the policy decision dated 6th August, 2004, no permit shall be granted in respect of such offer letters so issued. 5.2 The Regional Transport Authority, Kolkata and Howrah may fill-up vacancies against the strength fixed in the Notification dated 20th May, 2003 issued under Section 71(3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. 5.6 It is pointed out that there are some notified routes notified under Section 71(3)(a). In some cases there are certain existing permits which overlap such notified routes. For the time being such permits might be permitted to be operating, subject however to the decision of the State Transport Authority/Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, upon review. But no fresh permits shall be granted overlapping such routes if not already granted before 6th August, 2004. 6. The other question that has been raised is that this policy decision prohibits grant of permit only on routes originating from or terminating at CBD of Kolkata and Howrah as notified but also prohibits both the notified and non-notified routes touching CBD Kolkata and Howrah. Such a decision is perverse and ultra vires the statute. 6.1 We do not think that if such a decision is taken the same can be said to be perverse or ultra vires the statute. Such routes can be operated without touching CBD and in such cases no such permit shall henceforth be granted apart from the permits already operating since prior to 6th August, 2004. In respect of permits granted after 6th August, 2004 the routes should be modified so as not to touch CBD Kolkata and Howrah in terms of the policy declared by the notification published on 6th August, 2004. 7. Subject to what has been observed above and the directions contained herein, each case of the operators who are parties in this appeal or who have been added as parties and all other operators shall be decided by the appropriate authorities in the light of the observation made hereinabove and shall decide in each case on the basis of the directions given in this order. 8. 8. Since the validity of the notification dated 6th August, 2004 was upheld by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid case of Sujata Ganguly v. State of West Bengal (supra), we are also required to take note of the text of the said notification wherein it was notified that the Governor was pleased to direct the State Transport Authority, West Bengal and all the regional transport authorities in the State, that :- 1. No new bus route be formulated and permits be issued which may pass through the Central Business District, viz. Esplanade and Band Stand in Kolkata and Howrah Station and approach areas of Howrah Bridge (Rabindra Setu); till further orders; 2. No new permit for State Carriage shall be issued which may originate/terminate in Esplanade and Band Stand in Kolkata and Howrah Station; 3. No new bus route shall also be created/formulated in Kolkata and Howrah without creating any appropriate parking place having requisite amenities for both the passengers as well as the transport workers; 4. No new permit shall be issued for autorickshaw operating within Kolkata Metropolitan area. 9. The said notification makes it clear that neither any new bus route can be formulated nor any new permit can be issued for any vehicle which may pass through the central business district namely Esplanade and Band Stand in Kolkata and Howrah Station and approach areas of Howrah Bridge (Rabindra Setu) till further orders. The said notification also makes it clear that no new permit for stage carriage shall be issued which may originate/terminate in Esplanade and Band Stand in Kolkata and Howrah Station. 10. The said notification also makes it clear that no new permit for stage carriage shall be issued which may originate/terminate in Esplanade and Band Stand in Kolkata and Howrah Station. 10. In view of the undisputed fact that the said notification is still in force, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the direction which was passed by the learned single Judge in the modified order dated 22nd February, 2007 whereby the petitioner was permitted to operate his vehicle on the route as mentioned in the earlier order dated 21st September, 2006 namely Howrah New Bus Stand to Barrackpore via Howrah Bridge, Barabazar, M.G. Road and Sealdah, is in clear violation of the aforesaid notification which prohibits not only formulation of new route but also grant of new permit for any vehicle which may pass through the central business district namely Esplanade and Band Stand in Kolkata and Howrah Station and approach areas of Howrah Bridge (Rabindra Setu) inasmuch as no vehicle can reach Howrah Bridge without negotiating through the approach areas of Howrah Bridge i.e. Howrah Station on one side and Barabazar, M.G. Road on the other side. 11. Mr. Sen, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent tried to impress upon this Court that since the petitioner applied for grant of such permit long before the date of issuance of the aforesaid notification, the rights of the petitioner to obtain such permit cannot be restricted and/or denied on the basis of a subsequent notification which came into effect when the petitioner's application for such grant was pending for consideration before the concerned authority. Mr. Sen, thus, supported the order of the learned Trial Judge dated 21st September, 2006 by contending inter alia that the learned trial Judge rightly held that an accrued right of a person cannot be taken away either by issuance of a notification or by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sujata Ganguly v. State of West Bengal (supra). 12. I do not find any substance in such submission of Mr. 12. I do not find any substance in such submission of Mr. Sen as I have already indicated above that the petitioner, in course of hearing of the writ petition, abandoned his prayer for grant of such permit in the route of Howrah Station to Barrackpore for which he applied for, on 17th May, 2002 and prayed for issuance of a permit in respect of a modified route from Howrah New Bus Stand to Barrackpore via Howrah Station, Howrah Bridge, Barabazar, Posta, Girish Park, Central Avenue, Shyambazar, B.T. Road, Sodepur, Titagarh, Barrackpore, in his application dated 1st December, 2006. 13. Since the petitioner has abandoned his initial prayer for grant of permit for the route of Howrah Station to Barrackpore, by no tretch of imagination, it can be held that the writ petitioner's prayer for grant of such permit for the modified route was submitted before the issuance of the notification dated 6th August, 2004. 14. Be that as it may, I also do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Sen that any valuable right was accrued in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner submitted such application prior to issuance of the saidn otification. As a matter of fact no right, far less any valuable right can accrue in favour of an applicant by mere submission of an application for such grant. Right to obtain such permit matures into actionable right only when the applicant fulfils the conditions as mentioned in the offer letter. 15. Since offer letter was the issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of the modified route with the alignments as mentioned in the writ petitioner's letter dated 1st December, 2006, it cannot be held that any valuable right accrued in favour of the petitioner. 16. Mr. Sen further contended that the appellants, after accepting the order of the learned single Judge by issuing the offer letter on 15th December, 2006, cannot subsequently challenge the legality and/or validity of the said order by filing this appeal. 16. Mr. Sen further contended that the appellants, after accepting the order of the learned single Judge by issuing the offer letter on 15th December, 2006, cannot subsequently challenge the legality and/or validity of the said order by filing this appeal. In support of such submission he relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Sita Devi v. Bihar State Housing Board, (2007 AIR SCW 586) wherein it was held that a party accepting the judgment of the Court and acting thereupon, cannot question the legality of such judgment as such party is bound by the findings of the Court as the same had attained finality. 17. On careful perusal of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I find that the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision has no application in the facts of the instant case. In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that Bihar State Housing Board (2007 AIR SCW 586) (respondent) accepted the judgment of the writ Court and also acted thereon complying the said order without challenging the validity of the judgment of the writ Court in appeal. The writ petitioner, after being unsuccessful in the writ proceeding preferred an appeal before the appellate forum as the entire relief claimed by the petitioner was not granted by the writ Court and even after being unsuccessful therein filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 18. In the said appeal filed by the writ petitioner in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent-Bihar State Housing Board wanted to challenge the propriety of the judgment of the writ Court by taking recourse to the terms and conditions of allotment or of certain provisions of the Bihar State Housing Board (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulation, 1983. 19. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since the said respondent did not challenge the correctness of the judgment of the writ Court before the appellate forum, the said respondent cannot be permitted to challenge the correctness of the judgment of the writ Court for the first time before the Hon'ble Supreme Court even after accepting the judgment of the writ Court and by acting thereupon. In fact, the Privy Council as back as in 1926 held in the case of Mahomed Khaleel Shirazi and Sons v. Les Tanneries Lyonnaises, reported in (1927) 31 CWN page 1, that a party cannot be permitted to challenge the legality of an order by jumping the forum. In other words it was held therein that once a party accepts the order without challenging the same before the appellate forum, such party cannot be permitted to challenge the correctness of such order in the second appeal filed by his adversary after being unsuccessful in the first appeal filed by him. 20. Here in the instant case, I find that the respondent challenged the propriety of both the orders passed by the learned single Judge before the appellate forum. The appellants have never given up any forum for challenging the said orders of the learned single Judge of this Court. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellants herein accepted the Order of the learned single Judge. Mere issuance of the offer letter acting upon the order of the learned single Judge before the same was either stayed and/or set aside by the appellate forum, cannot be regarded as compliance of the order as the appellants had no other alternative but to issue such offer letter to avoid the risk of contempt. 21. That apart, if the offer letter is considered carefully, it will reveal that the offer letter was not issued in respect of the route alignment for which such issuance was directed by the learned single Judge of this Court in the modified order dated 22-2-2007. 22. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Sita Devi (2007 AIR SCW 586) (supra) has no application in the facts of the instant case. 23. This Court, thus, holds that the instant appeal is very much maintainable at the instance of the appellant herein. This Court further holds that the orders impugned in this appeal cannot be maintained as the said orders were passed not only in total disregard of the notification dated 6th August, 2004 but also by disregarding the spirit of the decision of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Sujata Ganguly v. State of West Bengal. 24. Accordingly, the impugned orders stand set aside. 24. Accordingly, the impugned orders stand set aside. The appeal is thus allowed. 25. Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with formalities. 26. SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, C.J. :- I agree. Appeal allowed.