JUDGMENT : S.K.Mishra, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who happens to be the owner of a stage carriage vehicle bearing Regn. No.0D-02-Z-5699, who had applied for route permit from Kakatpur to Bhubaneswar (2 R.T.) and was selected for the same, assails the order dated 21.3.2016 passed by the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Odisha, opposite party no.2, directing to place for grant of permit in favour of the petitioner in the next meeting of the State Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “S.T.A.” for brevity) to be held on 24.4.2016. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is a transport operator and he owns several vehicles. He purchased a new vehicle and get the same registered on 4.12.2015 bearing Regn. No.0D-02-Z-5699. The Transport Commissioner-cum-Chairman, State Transport Authority, Odisha, Cuttack has published an advertisement in The New Indian Express on 27.11.2015 inviting applications from intending stage carriage operators for grant of permanent permit against the various vacant lots/routes. In that advertisement, it was mentioned that applications must reach the Office of the Chairman within fifteen days during the office hours and not later than 5 P.M. on 11.12.2015. In the said advertisement it was stipulated that the applications must be made in prescribed form duly filled in and signed by the registered owner accompanied with money receipts towards applications fees together with all M.V. documents. It was further stipulated that the applicant shall also file an affidavit along with application stating therein that no tax dues and penalty are outstanding against the operator, no VCR pending against the vehicle, no court cases pending against any of his vehicle and the present vehicle. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement the petitioner had applied for grant of permanent permit in his favour for operating his stage carriage vehicle in the aforesaid route. The vacant route was mentioned at Sl. No.18 of the said advertisement. The application was undisputedly filed on the last date before closure of the Office. On 18.12.2015 the 280th meeting of the S.T.A. was held. On the basis of merits and evaluation criteria evolved by the S.T.A. the petitioner was found more meritorious and accordingly the S.T.A. in it proceeding mentioned above resolved to grant permanent permit in favour of the petitioner in respect of his stage carriage vehicle registration number of which has been mentioned in the preceding paragraph. On the basis of merits and evaluation criteria evolved by the S.T.A. the petitioner was found more meritorious and accordingly the S.T.A. in it proceeding mentioned above resolved to grant permanent permit in favour of the petitioner in respect of his stage carriage vehicle registration number of which has been mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Though the S.T.A. took a decision to grant permanent permit to the petitioner with a stipulation that the petitioner should lift the permit within a period of ten days from the date of grant of the order, the same has not been communicated to him. 4. However, it is the case of the petitioner that he has not been intimated by the opposite parties about the grant order. After the petitioner came to know about the decision of the S.T.A., he deposited the permit fees in the office of the Transport Commissioner on 10.2.2016 for issuance of permanent permit in his favour. Though the petitioner has deposited the permit fees and submitted all the M.V. documents before the office of the Transport Commissioner, as yet no permit has been issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner personally approached opposite party no.2 in respect of his vehicle. However, opposite party no.2 informed him that his case will be reconsidered in the next meeting. The petitioner further learnt that opposite party no.2 by virtue of its order dated 21.3.2016 has directed that the matter be placed before the next S.T.A. meeting to be held on 21.4.2016. The petitioner is, therefore, aggrieved by the order passed by opposite party no.2 to place his case in the next meeting of the S.T.A., seeks a direction to quash the said order, i.e. Annexure-5 and issue mandamus against opposite parties to issue permanent permit in respect of his vehicle in the aforesaid route. 5. The opposite parties, i.e. the S.T.A. represented through its Asst. Secretary, have filed its counter affidavit. The opposite parties in this case, inter alia, plead that the petitioner’s claim is based on the proceeding held in 280th meeting of the S.T.A. held on 18.12.2015 under Annexure-3. It contains a stipulation that the grantee shall lift the permit within a period of 10 days from the date of communication of the grant order. The opposite parties further plead that there is no communication of grant order from the opposite parties to the petitioner. It contains a stipulation that the grantee shall lift the permit within a period of 10 days from the date of communication of the grant order. The opposite parties further plead that there is no communication of grant order from the opposite parties to the petitioner. Therefore the question of seeking a direction for issuance of permanent permit does not arise. 6. The opposite parties further plead that one Anam Charan Swain who was also an applicant for the said route vide his communication dated 18.2.2016 brought to the notice of the Commissioner STA regarding pendency of V.C.R. against the petitioner. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the S.T.A. in its 279th meeting, held on 17.6.2015, decided that plying of vehicle by the applicant, violating permit condition, plying any vehicle without permit or any unauthorized route, making unauthorized trip, vehicle check report drawn/report submitted to that effect will be considered, irrespective of the fact that VCR was closed in compounding of the offence. It was further pleaded that five marks of each violation will be deducted for the aforesaid violation. Further case of the opposite parties is that at the time of consideration of permanent permit, the petitioner on 6.12.2015 has shown an affidavit that that there is no tax penalty outstanding pending against his vehicle, no VCR case is pending against his vehicle and also route. The opposite parties plead that on verification subsequently, it was found that there were two VCRs pending against the petitioner on the date of consideration of the application. In this connection two letters have been issued by the RTO, Bhubaneswar and RTO, Cuttack on 15.3.2016 and 14.3.2016 respectively. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner has given false affidavit indicating therein that non-pendency of the VCR against his other vehicles and on the basis of such misrepresentation it was decided to grant permit in his favour. 7. The opposite parties further plead that it is the settled principle of law that unless and until the order is communicated to the person concerned, it does not create nor confer any right on him, whose enforcement can be sought for. 7. The opposite parties further plead that it is the settled principle of law that unless and until the order is communicated to the person concerned, it does not create nor confer any right on him, whose enforcement can be sought for. Therefore when in due inquiry it was found that two number of VCRs were pending against the petitioners, the opposite parties thought it prudent to place the matter before the next meeting of S.T.A. for the purpose of taking just and appropriate decision in accordance with 279th meeting of S.T.A. held on 17.6.2015. The opposite parties pray that the writ petition is without merit and the same should be dismissed. 8. One Anam Charan Swain, intervener, has filed a Misc. Case to implead himself as a party to the proceeding. Though no order has been passed on the Misc. Case and he was not granted permission to file counter affidavit, learned counsel appearing for the intervener namely M. Balkrishna Rao was also heard along with the counsel for the petitioner and leaned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 9. In the above background of the facts, the following questions arise for determination. Firstly, whether the petitioner has deliberately perpetuated fraud or made a fraudulent representation regarding non-pendency of any VCR against any of his concerned vehicle which he is required to give as per the advertisement as per Annexure-1. Secondly, whether opposite party no.2 can stop issuance of permit though there is order to that effect by the S.T.A. Thirdly, it is to be seen whether the writ of mandamus should be issued quashing Annexure-5 upholding the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once STA takes a decision to grant physical issuance of permit is only a ministerial act and the Secretary, S.T.A. is bound to obey the order passed by the S.T.A. 10. The most important aspect of the case is that in the years 2014 as per the 279th meeting of the S.T.A., held on 17.6.2015, it has been decided that while considering grant of permit in favour of the different applicants minus marking should be adopted for each latches in payment of tax, pendency of cases and issuance of V.C.R. It is apparent from Annexure-A/2 that the S.T.A. in its 279th meeting resolved that that no mark should be awarded for experience as stage carriage operator. The most important resolution appeared at page 32 (internal page-7 of the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties). It is profitable to take note of the exact words used by the State. “(b) Plying of vehicle by the applicant violating permit conditions, plying any vehicle without permit on any unauthorized route, making unauthorized trip, Vehicle Check Reports drawn/reports submitted to that effect will be considered irrespective of the fact that the VCR was closed on composition of offences. Five marks for each violation will be deducted for above offences.” 11. Now in view of the resolution of the S.T.A. in its 279th meeting it was the bounden duty of the S.T.A. to incorporate the same in the advertisement, which was issued on 27.11.2015 as at Annnexure-1 asking the applicant to file affidavit in the line of the resolution. 12. A careful examination of Annexure-1, i.e. the advertisement reveals that the following condition has been imposed regarding criminal cases, VCR etc. “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx The applicant shall also file an affidavit along with application stating therein that no tax dues and penalty are outstanding against the operator, no VCR pending against the vehicle, no Court cases pending against any of his vehicle and the present vehicle, number of year of operation/experience of the applicant in providing passenger transport. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx.” 13. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement the petitioner, as it appears from the Annexure-B/2 filed by opposite party no.2, has filed an affidavit to the effect that there is no tax penalty outstanding pending against his vehicle, no V.C.R. court case is pending against any of his vehicle and also route. He has also stated that he has 25 years of experience in operating the stage carriage. 14. The specific case of the opposite parties is that after the decision was taken they have sought for clarification and it was brought to the notice of the S.T.A., as per the letters issued by the R.T.Os., Bhubaneswar and Cuttack on 15.3.2016 and 14.3.2016 that V.C.Rs. were initiated against the petitioner, but the same were disposed of on different dates. However, no such VCR was initiated against the stage carriage for which an application has been made. were initiated against the petitioner, but the same were disposed of on different dates. However, no such VCR was initiated against the stage carriage for which an application has been made. It is also borne out from the record that on the next year another advertisement was brought out by the STA in daily Odia Newspaper “Dharitiri” on 22.3.2016 which had also a stipulation similar to the stipulation made in the previous years advertisement which the subject matter of the writ petition. 15. It is further borne out from the record that on 5.4.2016 Annexure-11 has been issued by the STA, which is a corrigendum. In the said corrigendum, the opposite parties referring to the earlier advertisement published on 22.3.2016 in Odia Daily “Dharitri” clarified that no VCR pending against the vehicle may be read as no VCR pending against the operator. 16. From the aforesaid facts , which are amply established in this case, it is clear that the STA in its 279th meeting took a decision that negative mark should be awarded to those applicants against whom cases are pending for violation of traffic rules and regulations or against whom VCR are issued etc. However, while carrying out of the resolution of the STA in its 279th meeting the STA itself committed a mistake by not publishing the exact resolution taken by the STA in the 279th meeting, rather it sought for an affidavit from the intending operators to the following effect:- “…….The applicant shall also file an affidavit along with application stating therein that no tax dues and penalty are outstanding against the operator, no VCR pending against the vehicle, no Court cases pending against any of his vehicle and the present vehicle …..” 17. Thus, it is apparent that the opposite parties are themselves to be blamed. They have taken a decision and while carrying out the same they have made a mistake. This mistake was not detected in the year 2015. Another advertisement was issued against by the STA in the year 2016 committing the same mistake and later on corrigendum was issued. Thus, it is apparent that the opposite parties are themselves to be blamed. They have taken a decision and while carrying out the same they have made a mistake. This mistake was not detected in the year 2015. Another advertisement was issued against by the STA in the year 2016 committing the same mistake and later on corrigendum was issued. However, the corrigendum issued in the year 2016 will not be applicable to the present petitioner as his application was in pursuant to advertisement dtd.27.11.2015 wherein no stipulation has been made that no VCR should have been initiated against the petitioner, rather the stipulation was that no VCR could be initiated against the vehicle in question. 18. Thus, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the intervener that the petitioner has filed an affidavit to comply the stipulations made in the advertisement under Annexure-1 and there are cases, which were initiated and disposed of against his other vehicles, the act of the petitioner is tainted with fraud and the order of opposite party no.2 in stalling issuance of permanent permit in favour of the petitioner is correct. 19. However, this court is of the opinion that the corrigendum issued on 5.4.2016 has no application to the processes for selection in the year 2015 in pursuant to the advertisement dtd.27.11.2015. If the S.T.A. has taken a decision, it should implement the same. The petitioner should not suffer with any orders or liabilities if order is not implemented due to the fault of the S.T.A. The decision taken by the S.T.A. in its meeting is a confidential matter and the same is not published in the news paper. While publishing advertisement for consideration of application of issuance of route permit, it is the duty of the S.T.A. to implement its own decision and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has made any fraudulent representation or mis-representation of facts before the S.T.A. His affidavit is in the line of the advertisement issued under Annexure-1. So the first question that arises in this case is answered in favour of the petitioner and it is held that the petitioner has been treated discriminately by the S.T.A. and appropriate permit should be granted in his favour. So the first question that arises in this case is answered in favour of the petitioner and it is held that the petitioner has been treated discriminately by the S.T.A. and appropriate permit should be granted in his favour. It is also contended by the learned Standing Counsel in course of hearing that the decision to grant stage carriage permit in favour of the petitioner is that the S.T.A. has jurisdiction, to recall its own order, under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (xxii) of sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The S.T.A. can not recall the permit issued in his favour. However, careful examination of the aforesaid provision reveals that the Regional Transport Authority may after giving notice of not less than one month vary the conditions of the permit or attach to the permit further conditions. The aforesaid provision clearly provides for variation of the conditions of the permit and not recalling of the permit itself. So the contentions raised by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and learned counsel for the intervener are not tenable. 20. The second question is that the opposite parties plea that though decision has been taken for grant of permit in favour of the petitioner as per the 279th meeting as yet no permit has been issued against him so he cannot claim a matter of right to be issued a permanent permit. In this score, this Court takes note of the reported case of A.P.S.R.T.C. Vrs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others; AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 2621, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph-11 has held that the grant of permit and the issue of permit are different. The Tribunal or the Commissioner grants permission to the Secretary of the R.T.A. after receipt of record evidencing Transport Commissioner’s permission. The actual issue of permit was only a ministerial act and it cannot be equated to the grant of permit. Thus, it is clear that once it was decided in 280th meeting the only course available to opposite party no.2 is to issue permit in favour of the petitioner and his action in not granting permit or intimating him to lift the permit, the petitioner having already deposited the permit fees is illegal. 21. Thus, it is clear that once it was decided in 280th meeting the only course available to opposite party no.2 is to issue permit in favour of the petitioner and his action in not granting permit or intimating him to lift the permit, the petitioner having already deposited the permit fees is illegal. 21. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that writ petition is meritorious and it deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure-5 issued by opposite party no.2 referring the application of the petitioner for grant of permanent permit in favour of his vehicle bearing Regn. No.0D-02-Z-5699 to the next meeting is hereby quashed. Opposite party nos.1 and 2 are directed to issue the stage carriage permit immediately in favour of the petitioner preferably within a period of seven days from the date of notice of this order. 22. Keeping in view the aforesaid consideration, there shall be no order as to costs. 23. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner as per rules. 24. Requisites to communicate the order to the opposite parties be filed within seven days.