Judgment 1. THE petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated February 29, 2011 (sic) is seeking a mandamus commanding the Regional Transport Authority, Purba Medinipur to decide his application for grant of a stage carriage permit dated May 29, 2009 (at p.18). 2. COUNSEL for the petitioner submits as follows. The document at p.21 will show that the petitioners application for grant of a permit was received by the RTA on June 1, 2009. Since the application has not yet been disposed of, the petitioner is entitled to a mandamus. The document at p.21 is an acknowledgment receipt signed by a person describing himself as the "D.A." Relevant contents of the document are quoted below: "Received the application for grant of Stage Carriage Bus/Mini Bus/Trekker permit from Taimur Khan and the applicant is hereby asked to appear before the Regional Transport Authority Board on at for hearing and disposal of the application." It is evident from the document at p.21 that nothing therein can lead to a conclusion that the petitioner applied to the RTA, Purba Medinipur for grant of a stage carriage permit. 3. THERE is nothing to show that after May 29, 2009 the petitioner took any step. If he actually filed the application and the application was not taken up for consideration by the RTA, his natural reaction would have been to write to the RTA for ascertaining the fate of the application. 4. EVEN assuming that the petitioner submitted the application dated May 29, 2009, and that it has not yet been disposed of by the RTA, I do not find any reason to interfere in the matter in exercise of power under art.226, for the petitioner is inviting this Court to exercise the power mechanically. It is not the case of the petitioner that though his turn came, the RTA did not take up the matte for consideration. Nor is it his case that any application filed by any other person after him was taken up by the RTA ignoring his prior application. 5. WITHOUT ascertaining the real position and pursuing the application after June 1, 2009, if it was actually submitted on that date, the petitioner all of a sudden brought this WP. There is no visible cause of action for approaching the Writ Court abruptly. 6. 5. WITHOUT ascertaining the real position and pursuing the application after June 1, 2009, if it was actually submitted on that date, the petitioner all of a sudden brought this WP. There is no visible cause of action for approaching the Writ Court abruptly. 6. POWER under art.226 cannot be exercised for the asking taking the allegation made in the WP at face value. Nor is it to be exercised for making a roving inquiry. It was for the petitioner to make necessary inquiry before making the allegation of inaction. For these reasons, the WP is dismissed. It is made clear that if the petitioners application was actually filed and it has not been disposed of yet, then nothing herein shall be interpreted by anyone to say that the application should not be decided according to law. No costs.