ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs : – (i) Quashing the judgment and order dated 11th March, 2011 passed by the learned Chairman, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bihar, Patna (respondent no.2) passed in Transport Petition No. 17/2010 affirming the resolution of the State Transport Authority, Bihar, Patna dated 16.9.2010 by dismissing the petition of the petitioner contained in Annexure 14. (ii) As also to set aside the resolution of the State Transport Authority, Bihar resolved in the meeting of the authority held on 16.9.2010 proceeding of which is signed on 1.10.2010 by which the authority granted permanent Inter-State Stage Carriage Permit for the route Motihari to Silliguri in favour of Jai Ram Shukla (now dead) and his successor Mani Bhushan Kumar ignoring the right of the petitioner, which is contrary to decision of this Court. (iii) Grant such other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that the petitioner has been carrying on transport business on the basis of stage carriage permit on public road. It was also claimed that under reciprocal transport agreement between the State of Bihar and State of West Bengal published in Bihar Gazette on 25.5.1988, a permanent Inter State Stage Carriage Permit for the route Motihari to Siliguri for one up and down trip daily was granted by the State Transport Authority (hereafter referred to as ‘the Transport Authority’ for the sake of brevity) in favour of one Braj Kishore Singh vide Permit No. 33/1990 valid up to 29.6.1995, which, after two renewals, expired on 29.6.2005 as the said permit holder did not file any application for renewal of the said permit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that a vacancy having occurred for the aforesaid route, one Jai Ram Shukla applied on 30.6.2005 for grant of permanent permit on the said route, but due to certain objections raised against him, the Transport Authority did not approve the same in its meeting dated 19.7.2005 (Annexure 1) and resolved to advertise the vacancy inviting applications. Against the said resolution, the said Jai Ram Shukla filed C.W.J.C. No. 10875 of 2005, but it was dismissed as withdrawn by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.4.2006 (Annexure 17) with a liberty to the petitioner to move the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Tribunal’ for the sake of brevity). Hence the said Jai Ram Shukla filed Appeal No. 01 of 2006 before the said Appellate Tribunal, but subsequently he filed an application for conversion of the said appeal into revision, which was opposed by the respondents and hence the said application for conversion was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure 18). 4. Against the said order, the above named Jai Ram Shukla filed C.W.J.C. No. 14459 of 2006 and after hearing the parties on 16.1.2007 (Annexure 3), a Bench this Court found that against the aforesaid order of the Transport Authority regarding advertisement, no such appeal was maintainable and without applying its mind to the said position, the Tribunal called for the records, whereafter the Transport Authority was unable to proceed further in the matter. This Court further found that the said Jai Ram Shukla had without reasonable cause denied the public of an additional route to Siliguri from Motihari for over a year, which action was unexplainable and hence the said writ petition was dismissed with a direction to the Transport Authority to immediately readvertise the availability of the route for grant of permit and expeditiously proceed to select and settle the permit in favour of the most eligible candidate. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in compliance of the said order, the Transport Authority issued advertisement on 9.12.2008 (Annexure 4), in response to which the petitioner filed his application on 24.12.2008 (Annexure 5). Thereafter, the matter remained pending and finally on 24.8.2010 (Annexure 6) a notice was issued by the Transport Authority notifying the modified date of meeting to be held on 16.9.2010. However, from the agenda of the said meeting dated 16.9.2010 (Annexure 7), it transpires that the applications of the petitioner and Jai Ram Shukla were not included and hence the petitioner filed an application before the Transport Authority on 16.9.2010 (Annexure 9), but without considering it the Transport Authority vide its resolution dated 16.9.2010 (Annexure 8) granted the said permit to Jai Ram Shukla. 6. 6. Against the said decision of the Authority, the petitioner filed Transport Appeal No. 17 of 2010, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.3.2011 (Annexure 14) passed by the Appellate Tribunal along with other Transport Appeal No. 14 of 2010 filed by one Amrit Pal Singh only on the basis of order dated 12.4.2010 (Annexure 10) passed by the Appellate Tribunal in Transport Revision Nos. 13, 15,16 and 17, all of 2008, which were filed by other persons and in which it was held that if an application under Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) for the grant of Inter State Carriage Permit by increasing the number of trip is filed against the vacancies caused due to cancellation of permit, it is settled under the Act that such application is as good as an application for grant of a new permit and the Transport Authority has all jurisdiction to decide the matter, but within the ambit of law and in accordance with law as there is no rider over the Transport Authority within the circumscribed fence of the Act and the Rules for regulating the grant of permit. Thus, it was decided that as the Act and the Rules do not prescribe the advertisement of the routes for grant of permit as such, all those revisions were allowed and the impugned order dated 28.8.2008 challenged in those revisions was set aside. 7. In the said circumstances, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal of his appeal dated 11.3.2011 (Annexure 14) by the Appellate Tribunal as well as against the order of the Transport Authority dated 16.9.2010 (Annexure 9) granting the permit to Jai Ram Shukla. 8. Learned counsel for private respondent no. 4 stated that the route in question is Motihari-Silliguri Interstate Route, for which two permits for Bihar nominees and one permit for Bengal nominee were required and out of them Bihar nominees were Ramit Pal Singh and Braj Kishore Singh and subsequently the permit of Braj Kishore Singh expired on 29.6.2005 and no petition for renewal was filed as Braj Kishore Singh had died, whereafter Jai Ram Shukla suo motu applied for the said route on 30.6.2005 under Section 80 of the Act. It was also stated that the Transport Authority did not allow the said application and in the meeting dated 19.7.2005 it resolved to invite applications, on the basis of which advertisement was published on 17.3.2006 and in response to which the petitioner applied on 27.3.2006. 9. Learned counsel for private respondent no. 4 submitted that the aforesaid resolution of the Transport Authority dated 19.7.2005 was challenged by Jai Ram Shukla before the Appellate Tribunal vide Appeal No. 01 of 2006, in which several persons intervened, but on 19.4.2006 the Appellate Tribunal granted stay. However, on interveners’ objection, Jai Ram Shukla (appellant) filed an application for conversion of appeal into revision, but the said application was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal on 14.11.2006. This order was challenged by Jai Ram Shukla vide C.W.J.C. No. 14459 of 2006, which was dismissed by a Bench of this Court on 16.1.2007, whereafter, Jai Ram Shukla withdrew his appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. 10. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 also averred that only thereafter respondent no.4 applied for permit for the said route on 2.6.2008 before the Transport Authority, which in its meeting dated 28.8.2008 resolved to advertise three interstate routes including the route concerned as per the first advertisement. It was also averred that against the aforesaid order dated 28.8.2008, four revisions were filed before the Appellate Tribunal bearing T.R. No. 13 of 2008, T.R. No. 15 of 2008, T.R. No. 16 of 2008 and T.R. No. 17 of 2008, out of which T.R. No. 13 of 2008 and T.R. No. 15 of 2008 were for different routes by other applicants, whereas, T.R. No. 16 of 2008 was filed by objector Ramit Pal Singh, and T.R. No. 17 of 2008 was filed by Jai Ram Shukla and after his death his heirs were substituted on 22.7.2009. It was further averred that the petitioner, namely, Subhas Chandra did not challenge the said order dated 28.8.2008, rather he was made respondent no.4 in T.R. No. 17 of 2008 filed by Jai Ram Shukla. It was further averred that the petitioner, namely, Subhas Chandra did not challenge the said order dated 28.8.2008, rather he was made respondent no.4 in T.R. No. 17 of 2008 filed by Jai Ram Shukla. Furthermore, respondent no.4 of this writ petition, namely, Mani Bhushan Kumar filed a petition in the said T.R. No. 17 of 2008 for being substituted in place of Jai Ram Shukla, but the said petition was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 12.4.2010, by which all the aforesaid four cases were allowed and order dated 28.8.2008 passed by the Transport Authority was set aside. 11. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 argued that all the relevant provisions of law including section 82 of the Act and the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Mst. Dhani Devi vs. Sant Bihari Sharma and others, reported in A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 759 and in case of Cumbum Railways (P) Ltd. vs. Somu Transport (P) Ltd., reported in A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1366, were considered by the Appellate Tribunal while passing the aforesaid order, which has attained finality as the petitioner neither challenged the same nor did he challenge the earlier order of the Transport Authority dated 28.8.2008 and hence there was no question of considering the case of the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for private respondent no. 4 argued that the application of Jai Ram Shukla was pursued after his death by his successor, namely, respondent no.4 and hence, according to the settled law, permit was granted in the name of respondent no.4, who is himself the owner of the vehicle. He also relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 31.1.1994 (Annexure ‘C’) passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7130 of 1991, the facts of which are similar to the facts of the instant case, hence he argued that the impugned actions of the authorities concerned are legal, valid and proper. 13. He also relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 31.1.1994 (Annexure ‘C’) passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7130 of 1991, the facts of which are similar to the facts of the instant case, hence he argued that the impugned actions of the authorities concerned are legal, valid and proper. 13. Learned counsel for respondent-State of Bihar and its authorities stated that the matter was considered in detail by the Transport Authority vide order dated 28.8.2008 and since there was only one application of Jai Ram Shukla, who was grand father of the petitioner, the order of re-advertisement was passed, on the basis of which the advertisement was published on 9.12.2008, but against order dated 28.8.2008 respondent no.4 filed a revision, which was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal setting aside the order of the Transport Authority dated 28.8.2008 and hence the Transport Authority was fully justified in following the orders of the Appellate Tribunal. 14. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the concurrence of extra quota of permits as per reciprocal transport agreement,1988 was granted on 22.6.2006 (Annexure 15) and that was with respect to the vacancy in place of Braj Kishore Singh, the earlier allottee and the matter with respect to the said vacancy had been decided finally by the Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 12.4.2010 (Annexure 10) passed in T.R. Nos. 13,15,16 & 17, all of 2008, none of which were filed by the petitioner. 15. On the other hand, order dated 19.7.2005 clearly shows that it was for the second vacancy, not connected with the first vacancy created due to removal of Braj Kishore Singh, although the route was the same, but, admittedly, there were at least two permits for Bihar nominees in respect of Motihari-Silliguri Interstate Route as per the reciprocal transport agreement between the State of Bihar and the State of West Bengal. 16. The matter with respect to the permit for the said route, namely, Motihari-Silliguri Interstate Route arose when Jai Ram Shukla applied for the same on 30.6.2005, but the Transport Authority did not approve the same and resolved to advertise the said vacancy inviting applications vide resolution dated 19.7.2005 (Annexure 1). 16. The matter with respect to the permit for the said route, namely, Motihari-Silliguri Interstate Route arose when Jai Ram Shukla applied for the same on 30.6.2005, but the Transport Authority did not approve the same and resolved to advertise the said vacancy inviting applications vide resolution dated 19.7.2005 (Annexure 1). The said resolution was challenged by the said Jai Ram Shukla in C.W.J.C. No. 10875 of 2005, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 5.4.2006 (Annexure 17) for filing an appeal, which was filed by him, but subsequently he filed an application for conversion of the said appeal into a revision, which was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on 14.11.2006 (Annexure 18). The said order was challenged by Jai Ram Shukla vide C.W.J.C. No. 14459 of 2006, which was dismissed on 16.1.2007 (Annexure 3) with a direction to the Transport Authority to immediately readvertise the availability of route for grant of permit and expeditiously proceed to select and settle the permit in favour of the most eligible candidate. 17. In compliance of the aid order of the of this Court, the Transport Authority got advertisement dated 9.12.2008 (Annexure 4) issued, whereafter several persons including the petitioner filed their applications, out of which the petitioner’s application was dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure 5), but the said matter remained pending till 24.8.2010 (Annexure 6) when a notice was issued by the Transport Authority notifying the date of meeting to be held on16.9.2010. 18. From the schedule of the said meeting dated 16.9.2010 (Annexure 7), it is quite apparent that the applications of the petitioner and Jai Ram Shukla filed in the year 2008 were not included in the agenda and hence the petitioner filed an application before the Transport Authority on 16.9.2010 (Annexure 9), which was not considered by the Transport Authority and vide its resolution dated 16.9.2010 permit was granted to Jai Ram Shukla. 19. When the petitioner challenged the said resolution of the Transport Authority by way of filing Appeal No. 17 of 2010, the same was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 11.3.2011 (Annexure 14) only on the ground that earlier the Appellate Tribunal had decided T.R. Nos. 19. When the petitioner challenged the said resolution of the Transport Authority by way of filing Appeal No. 17 of 2010, the same was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 11.3.2011 (Annexure 14) only on the ground that earlier the Appellate Tribunal had decided T.R. Nos. 13,15,16 & 17, all of 2008 vide order dated 30.7.2009 and the lawyers of all the parties were present on the said date, but the said order was not challenged by the petitioner or by any one else before any authority, which became final. 20. Thus, it is quite apparent that the Appellate Tribunal passed its order only on the basis of the earlier order of the Tribunal in T.R. Nos. 13,15,16 & 17, all of 2008 dated 30.7.2009, which were with respect to the first permit, whereas, the instant matter is with respect to the other permit although for the same route. The Appellate Tribunal ignored that this was a different matter altogether with respect to which specific order had been passed by a Bench of this Court on 16.1.2007 (Annexure 3) in C.W.J.C. No. 14459 of 2006 and, accordingly, advertisements were issued by the Transport Authority on 9.12.2008 (Annexure 4). 21. The Appellate Tribunal also ignored that the Transport Authority after the aforesaid advertisement slept over the matter for two years, which was specifically against the spirit of the order of the High Court, which was passed observing that Jai Ram Shukla had, without reasonable cause, denied the public of an additional route for over a year, which action was unexplainable. 22. The Appellate Tribunal further ignored that the Transport Authority resolved in its resolution dated 16.9.2009 considering only the application of Jai Ram Shukla and ignoring the applications of the petitioner and others, which was clearly against all norms of justice and fair play, specially when this Court had, time and again, held that if Section 80 of the Act confers unfettered and unbridled power to the authority to entertain single application behind the back of the public at large for grant of permit then that provision cannot be said to be in conformity with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and it is also ultra vires of the Constitution. In this connection, reference may be made to various orders of the Benches of this Court, which are annexed to the writ petition as Annexures 11 and 13. 23. In this connection, reference may be made to various orders of the Benches of this Court, which are annexed to the writ petition as Annexures 11 and 13. 23. It is not in dispute that Jai Ram Shukla has died and hence there was no occasion for the authorities to issue a permit in his name nor is there any provision in law to assume that respondent no.4 Mani Bhushan Kumar, who claims to be the grandson of Jai Ram Shukila, can be allowed to operate the permit as a representative of Jai Ram Shukla, who has already died more than two years back. 24. So far the reliance of the respondents on a decision of the Apex Court in case of Mst. Dhani Devi (supra) is concerned, no doubt the Transport Authority has power to substitute the heir of the applicant, who had died during the pendency of the application and grant permit to the substituted person, but in the instant case neither any substitution had been made by the Transport Authority nor any permit had been granted to respondent no.4, who merely claims to be the grandson of Jai Ram Shukla. 25. So far other decision relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents in case of Cumbum Railways (P) Ltd. (supra) is concerned, it is with respect to the Appellate Tribunal reversing the order of the Transport Authority and the High Court remitting the matter to the Appellate Tribunal, in which it was held that the remand must not in each case be before the original authority and the remand should only be confined to those parties, which came to the High Court and should not extend to others. Hence both the aforesaid case-laws are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 26. Thus, it is quite apparent that the High Court’s order dated 16.1.2007 (Annexure 3) passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14459 of 2006 had not been considered by the authorities in its true letter and spirit. Hence both the aforesaid case-laws are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 26. Thus, it is quite apparent that the High Court’s order dated 16.1.2007 (Annexure 3) passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14459 of 2006 had not been considered by the authorities in its true letter and spirit. The Transport Authority granted permit to a dead person, who had died on 27.3.2009 as claimed by the petitioner and not denied by the respondents, considering only his application and ignoring applications of others including that of the petitioner and the appellate authority affirming that order merely on the basis of an earlier order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in four revision cases, which were with respect to the other permit for the same route, altogether ignoring that for the same route, several permits were granted as per the reciprocal transport agreement and the instant matter was with respect to the second one. 27. In the said circumstances, this Court has no option but to allow this writ petition and quash order dated 16.9.2010 (Annexure 8) passed by the State Transport Authority, Bihar and also order dated 11.3.2011 (Annexure 14) passed by the Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bihar in Transport Appeal No. 17 of 2010. The Transport Authority is directed to immediately readvertise the availability of the route in question for grant of permit in accordance with the prescribed procedure and expeditiously proceed to select the most eligible person and issue the permit in his favour as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order as the public of the area concerned has been suffering since long due to Jai Ram Shukla, who, without reasonable cause, had denied the public of the additional route between Motihari-Silliguri as had been found by a Bench of this Court while passing order dated 16.1.2007 (Annexure 3) in C.W.J.C. No. 14559 of 2006 and, thereafter, respondent no.4 is following his foot steps.