Judgment : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. As common issues of facts and law are involved in all these writ petitions and as common arguments were addressed by the petitioner and learned Advocate General in all these petitions, they are being disposed of vide common judgment. 2. The reliefs prayed for in all these three writ petitions are as under: In CWP No.5853 of 2021, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. That impugned order dated 22.9.2020 passed by the respondent, conveyed through Secretary- State Transport Authority, Himachal Pradesh may be quashed/set aside; 2) That respondent be directed to strictly adhere to the provisions of law namely Ss. 80, read with 70, 71, 72,88 duly settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Mithilesh Garg, Pancham Chand considering it as binding under Article 141 and 144 of Constitution of India while dealing with the matter of grant of stage carriage permits; 3) That, respondent also be directed to follow the judgment of Shri Anil Kumar & Others Vs. State of H.P & others rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in CWP No. 11495/2011-J, CWP No 3592 of 2011, titled as M/s Sood Bus Service & others Versus State of H.P & Others and CWP No 9367 of 2011-G on dated 13.1.12 in letter and spirit while granting stage carriage permits which it violated patently; 4) That respondent be directed to abide by Anil Kumar judgement as per opinion given by the Law Department through Secretary (Law), Govt of Himachal qua opinion no. N-18, dated 4-7-12 on the judgment to adhere the law in letter and spirit while granting permits; 5) not to interpret Ajay Parihar's judgment as deterrent on exercise of its statutory functions conferred on it by section 80, 71, 72 of the Act while dealing with applications of petitioner but to follow the spirit and directions issued to it to grant the route permits strictly in accordance with law; 6) That respondent be directed to immediately grant the permits to the petitioner u/s 80 read with 70, 71, 72, 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 along with submitted timetable, grant of countersignatures by adopting similar provisions/ procedures/ arrangements adopted for HRTC enabling it to ply the bus service qua the routes. Services of advance notices on the Respondents may be dispensed with.” In CWP 9146 of 2024, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “1. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, ORDER, OR DIRECTION declaring the order dated 17.9.14 [ANNEXURE P3] passed by the Chairman STA without jurisdiction in violation of Rule 122 is "nonest", "void ab- initio", "inoperative" "illegal" and 'ultra vires' rules 57 and 60 of HP Motor Vehicles Rules 1999 and also violative of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of "Chandrabhai K Bhoir & Ors. V/s Krishan Arjun Bhoir & Ors", and quash it accordingly. 2. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order, or directions commanding respondent no. 1 to comply with the order [P1] in true letter and spirit in time bound manner "considering" the applications dated 17.9.14 filed complying with order 15.7.14 [P1]. 3. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order, or directions commanding respondent no. 1 to "grant" the permits along with the proposed timetable, in a time-bound manner by exclusively following the "prescribed procedures" contemplated under section 72(1) read with section 80(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and Rule 57,60 of the HP Motor Vehicles Rules 1999 as per law settled in " Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India " 1991 INSC 309, "Pancham Chand Vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2008 INSC 298" "State of U.P vs Singhara Singh" 1963 INSC 173. 4. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the registration of a criminal case against Respondent No. 2 under the relevant Criminal Laws for abusing and exceeding their powers in falsely creating illusion of compliance of the order [P1] with passing the impugned order with the clear intention to cause legal injury to the petitioner, clearly misleading the petitioner as well this Hon'ble Court.” In CWP No.7773 of 2025, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “1. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure P-III), passed by Respondent No. 2, as being non est, void ab initio, ultra vires, and beyond the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Officer, Shimla. 2. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure P-III), passed by Respondent No. 2, as being non est, void ab initio, ultra vires, and beyond the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Officer, Shimla. 2. Clarify and conclusively interpret the judgment dated 03.12.2024, in light of Baradkanta Mishra rendered in Anand Moudgil v. State Transport Authority, HP & Ors., particularly Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, and 9, and declare that Respondent No. 1 is bound to adhere to the procedural mandate envisaged u/s 71(2) r/w 80(1) & (2) and decide u/s 72(1) r/w 80(2), strictly in accordance with the binding ratio laid down in Mithilesh Garg, Pancham Chand, and Singhara Singh, without discretion to distinguish or deviate while deciding application u/s 72(1), and 80(2). 3. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, commanding Respondent No. 1 to grant permits in strict compliance with Anand Moudgil and its binding legal principles, without deviation or discretionary departure. 4. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, restraining Respondent No. 1 from taking any action, adopting any interpretation, or exercising any discretion in a manner contrary to Anand Moudgil, and prohibiting any deviation from the binding procedural framework.” 3. In terms of order dated 17.09.2014 (Annexure P-3), which has been challenged by the petitioner by way of CWP No.9146 of 2024, Additional Chief Secretary (Transport) has rejected the representation of the petitioner for the grant of Stage Carriage Route Permit by holding that the request of the petitioner falls in the category of suo moto application for granting of Route Permit and the same cannot be granted in light of the judgments of this Court in CWP No.7295 of 2012 and CWP No.2532 of 2014. The only order that could be passed is that the Authority may consider the routes applied for by the petitioner in the proposal for consideration of routes for publication in future before granting any permit, so that the petitioner may also apply for such routes, as may be published by the Authority for grant of Route Permits for plying of stage carriages in future. 4. 4. In terms of order dated 22.09.2020, which is assailed by way of CWP No.5853 of 2021, the application filed by him for issuance of State Carriage Permit has been rejected on the ground that the case of the petitioner for the grant of permit again falls in the category of suo moto application and the same was in violation of the orders of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, delivered in CWP No. 7295 of 2012 and CWP No.2532 of 2014. 5. In terms of order dated 23.08.2024, which is assailed by way of CWP No.7773 of 2025, again the petitioner has been intimated that the application filed by the petitioner for the grant of Route Permit from Shimla to Haridwar falls in the category of suo moto application and any consideration and subsequent grant of such permit shall invite contempt of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, as the directions of the High Court in CWP No.7295 of 2012 are emphatic that such permits are not to be granted without publication. It is further mentioned in the said communication that as per Clause 4 (xi) of the Interstate Transport Agreement signed between the States of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, no new Route Permit shall be granted to a private stage carriage operator in the interstate route or in the corridor route. 6. The arguments in all these petitions were addressed by the petitioner in person. The primary contention of the petitioner was that all the Authorities in terms of the impugned orders erred in not appreciating that as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, a statutory right is conferred upon the petitioner to apply for the Stage Carriage Route Permit. He argued that once he had applied for the grant of Stage Carriage Route Permits and there was no impediment in the issuance thereof in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the applications could not have been rejected on the grounds, as are stated in the impugned orders. He argued that once he had applied for the grant of Stage Carriage Route Permits and there was no impediment in the issuance thereof in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the applications could not have been rejected on the grounds, as are stated in the impugned orders. He submitted that the statutory right conferred upon him under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be throttled in the mode and manner in which it has been done in the present cases, because the Motor Vehicles Act does not bar an applicant from approaching the Authority for the issuance of stage carriage permit independently suo moto and that the applicant can approach only if the Department invites applications for issuance of Stage Carriage Permit on identified routes. He vehemently argued that this was not only against the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, but was also not in- consonance with the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India , (1992) 1 Supreme Court Cases 168, and Pancham Chand And Others vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others , (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 117. Accordingly, he prayed that the writ petitions be allowed, impugned orders be set aside and a mandamus be issued to the respondents to grant the Stage Carriage Route Permits to him, as have been requested by him. 7. On the other hand, learned Advocate General argued that there was no infirmity in the orders under challenge, as the applications of the petitioner were rejected by the Authorities in terms of the judgments of this Court and this was clearly spelled out in all the orders. He submitted that one of the petitions was maintainable being belated as an order passed in the year 2014 has been assailed after 10 years. De hors this fact, he submitted that the petitioner was asking this Court to take a stand contrary to the one taken by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and as the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench is binding upon this Bench, therefore, the prayers of the petitioner cannot be favorably considered. 8. I have heard the petitioner and learned Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as other documents on record, including various judgments which have been referred to in the course of his submissions by the petitioner. 9. 8. I have heard the petitioner and learned Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as other documents on record, including various judgments which have been referred to in the course of his submissions by the petitioner. 9. The issue in these matters is in a very narrow compass. The petitioner has approached the Statutory Authority for the issuance of Stage Carriage Permit and his applications have been rejected on the ground that in light of the judgments passed by this Court, a person cannot suo moto approach the Authority for insurance of a Permit and it is only after certain identified routes stand published by the Authority/Department concerned that an interested person or party may apply for the grant of thus published Route Permit. 10. Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the procedure in applying for and granting permits. This Section inter alia provides that an application for a Permit of any kind may be made at any time and a Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed Authority referred to in Section 66 (1) shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under this Act. 11. The petitioner on the strength of this statutory provision submitted that this Section confers a right upon him to submit an application for a Permit of any kind at any time and the authority in terms of this Section shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for Permit of any kind made at any time under this Act. He submitted that under the Motor Vehicles Act, there is no provision that the Authority shall firstly identify certain routes and then publish them and that only thereafter, an interested person can apply for the grant of a Stage Carriage Permit. 12. Now, a perusal of the three impugned orders demonstrates that the applications of the petitioner have been rejected by the Authority by referring to the certain judgments of this Court. 13. In CWP No.7295 of 2012, titled Ajay Parihar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, on 30.08.2012, the following order was passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench: “Notice to respondents No.5 to 16. There will be a direction to respondents No.1, 2 and 4 not to grant any route permits, for which applications have not been called for by the RTAs. 13. In CWP No.7295 of 2012, titled Ajay Parihar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, on 30.08.2012, the following order was passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench: “Notice to respondents No.5 to 16. There will be a direction to respondents No.1, 2 and 4 not to grant any route permits, for which applications have not been called for by the RTAs. In other words, without the State or RTA concerned first notifying route permit, there shall not be any grant of route permits as suggested or requested by the operators.” 14. Thereafter, Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to decide CWP No.7295 of 2012, titled Ajay Parihar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, on 18.05.2016, by returning the following findings:- “4. The facts are not disputed and may be summarized as follows. 5. The Regional Transport Authority held a meeting on 1st/ 2nd November, 2011 for which the agenda was fixed on 1.11.2011 itself, though the same was required to be prepared at least 10 day’s prior to the meeting. In this meeting, applications were received suo motu by the Regional Transport Authority from private operators for grant of fresh stage carriage route permits. 6. This fact is not disputed as would be evident from the contents of para 4 of the reply filed on behalf of official respondents, which reads thus:- “4. That the contents of para 4 of the writ petition are admitted to the extent that the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Dharamshala was held on 1.11.2011 and 2.11.2011. It is further submitted that the agenda for the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority for its discussion on the said dates was prepared as per usual procedure followed for the meetings. It is pertinent to mention here that the Supplementary Agenda was prepared at the time of meeting with the consent of the Chairman of the Authority is well within the procedure prescribed for holding meetings.” 7. It is further not in dispute that not only the applications for grant of route permit were considered suo motu, but thereafter these permits were also granted in favour of private operators. Therefore, the moot question that arises for consideration is as to whether Regional Transport Authority or any one of its officers was competent to have devised such a procedure which otherwise is not contemplated under the Rules. 8. Therefore, the moot question that arises for consideration is as to whether Regional Transport Authority or any one of its officers was competent to have devised such a procedure which otherwise is not contemplated under the Rules. 8. The procedure regulating the conduct of business of State Transport Authorities and the Regional Transport Authorities is provided under Rule 60 of the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) which reads thus: “60. Procedure for conduct of business (1) Subject to the provisions of the Act and these rules, the State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority shall have power to make bye-laws to regulate the conduct of its business and shall likewise have powers to amend such bye–laws and the business of such authorities shall be conducted accordingly under the directions of the Chairman of the respective authority. (2) The Secretary concerned of the authority referred to in sub-rule (1) shall issue to each member of the State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, a copy of the agenda ten day’s before the actual date of the meeting at which it is to be considered. (3) Save in the case of the hearing of an objection to the grant of a stage carriage permit or of a goods carriages permit or a contract carriage permit, the State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority as the case may be ; may decide any matter without holding a meeting by the majority of the votes of members, recorded in writing, and sent to the Secretary concerned (hereinafter this method to be referred as “procedure by circulation’). (4) In the procedure by circulation, the secretary of the authority concerned shall send to each member such particulars of the matters as may be reasonably necessary in order to enable the member to arrive at the decision and shall specify the date by which the votes of the members to be received in the office of the concerned authority. Upon receipt of the votes of the members as aforesaid, the secretary concerned shall lay the papers before the chairman, who shall record the decision by endorsement on the application for grant of a permit according to the votes received and the vote or votes 39 cast by him. Upon receipt of the votes of the members as aforesaid, the secretary concerned shall lay the papers before the chairman, who shall record the decision by endorsement on the application for grant of a permit according to the votes received and the vote or votes 39 cast by him. The record of the votes cast shall be kept by the secretary and shall not be available for inspection by any person save by a member, at a regularly constituted meeting of the concerned authority. No decision shall be made upon procedure by circulation before the date by which the votes of the members are required to reach the office of the authority, or not less than one third of the members of the authority by notice in writing to the secretary, demand that the matter be referred to a meeting of the authority. (5) The number of votes, excluding the Chairman’s second or casting vote necessary for a decision to be taken upon procedure by circulation shall not be less than the number necessary to constitute a quorum. (6) Nothing in this rule shall prevent a State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority to decide upon procedure by circulation any matter which has been considered at a meeting. (7) When a matter is decided by votes of the members present at a meeting of the State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority no person other than a member shall be entitled to be present and no record of the voting shall be kept save of the number of votes cast on either side. Provided that when any matter is decided by the exercise of second or casting vote of the Chairman, the fact shall be recorded. (8) In case the non-official members of the State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority differ on any matter en-block from the official members, the matter shall be referred for decision to the Government in the case of State Transport Authority and to the State Transport Authority in the case of a Regional Transport Authority. 9. (8) In case the non-official members of the State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority differ on any matter en-block from the official members, the matter shall be referred for decision to the Government in the case of State Transport Authority and to the State Transport Authority in the case of a Regional Transport Authority. 9. It is evident from a bare perusal of sub rule (2) of Rule 60 that the Secretary concerned of the authority shall issue to each member of the Regional Transport Authority a copy of the agenda ten day’s before the actual date of the meeting at which it is to be considered and thereafter further procedure regarding the mode and manner in which the business is to be conducted has been contemplated. 10. It is more than settled that an action to be taken in a particular manner as provided by a statute, must be taken, done or performed in the manner prescribed or not at all. More than eighty years back, the Hon’ble Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad Vs King Emperor, (AIR 1936, PC 253) held that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the things must be done in that way or not at all and this has been approved and further expanded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments ( Refer: Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh & anr Vs. State of Vindh-P, AIR 1954, SC 322; Deep Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961, SC 1527; State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh & ors, AIR 1964, SC 358; Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad, 1999(8) SCC 266 ; Dhananjaya Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka, 2001 (4), SCC 9; State of Jharkhand & ors Vs. Ambay Cements and anr, (2005) 1, SCC 368; Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Vs. Essar Power Limited, 2008 (4), SCC 755; Zuari Cement Ltd Vs. Regional Director, ESIC, Hyderabad & ors, AIR 2015, SC 2764; and Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd Vs. Sant Singh & ors, Civil Appeal No.5072 of 2016 decided on 13th May, 2016). 11. Unfortunately these principles have been violated in wholesome in the case in hand, “13. All purposes or actions for which moral responsibility can bewhereby Regional Transport Authority has arbitrarily indulged in dolling out route permits. Such flagrant abuse and misuse of power cannot be countenanced. Sant Singh & ors, Civil Appeal No.5072 of 2016 decided on 13th May, 2016). 11. Unfortunately these principles have been violated in wholesome in the case in hand, “13. All purposes or actions for which moral responsibility can bewhereby Regional Transport Authority has arbitrarily indulged in dolling out route permits. Such flagrant abuse and misuse of power cannot be countenanced. As a matter of fact, the Regional Transport Authority was not even conferred or even vested with any discretionary power and was thus required to have strictly adhered to the procedure as prescribed in the Rules. 12. Therefore, when an action is taken in furtherance of explicit power given by a statute, the legitimacy of invoking such power shall depend entirely upon the extent of achieving net and objective for which the statute enables the exercise of such power. 13. It is more than settled that law cannot be administered with an evil eye or with an unequal hand or for an oblique or unworthy performance and the arms of this court will be long enough to reach out and strike down such a view with a heavy hand. 14. The Regional Transport Authority, more particularly, the Regional Transport Officer could not have abused his/their power and trust under the camouflage of performance of their public duty and thereby in an arbitrary and illegal manner allotted route permits, that too by receiving suo motu applications in utter disregard and gross violation of the procedure contemplated under the Rules. 15. It needs to be reiterated that public offices, both big and small, are sacred trusts. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse and in case repositories of such offices surpass the rule, then the law is not that powerless and would step in to quash such arbitrary orders. 16. Respondent No.4, being a creation of statute, is admittedly a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and cannot, therefore, act like a private individual, who is free to act in a manner whatsoever he likes, unless it is interdicted or prohibited by law. It is settled that the State and its instrumentalities have to act strictly within the four corners of law and all its activities are government by Rules, regulations and instructions. It is settled that the State and its instrumentalities have to act strictly within the four corners of law and all its activities are government by Rules, regulations and instructions. It is more than settled that whenever a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, then the same must be done in that manner or not at all. 17. In Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Vs. Daulat Mal Jain & ors, (1997) Vol 1 SCC 35, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “13. All purposes or actions for which moral responsibility can be attached are actions performed by individual persons composing the Department. All Government actions, therefore,means actions performed by individual person to further the objectives set down in the Constitution, the laws and the administrative policies to develop democratic traditions. Social and economic democracy are set down in the Preamble, Part III and Part IV of the Constitution. The intention behind the Government actions and purposes is to further the public welfare and the national interest. Public good is synonymous to protection of the interests of the citizens as a territorial unit or nation as a whole. It also aims to further the public policies. The limitations of the policies are kept along with the public interest to prevent the exploitation or misuse or abuse of the office or the executive actions for personal gain or for illegal gratification. 14. The so-called public policy cannot be a camouflage for abuse of the power and trust entrusted with a public authority or public servant for the performance of public duties. Misuse implies doing of something improper. The essence of impropriety is replacement of a public motive for a private one. When satisfaction sought in the performance of duties is for mutual personal gain, the misuse is usually termed as corruption. The holder of a public office is said to have misused his position when in pursuit of a private satisfaction, as distinguished from public interest, he has done something which he ought not to have done. The most elementary qualification demanded of a Minister is honesty and incorruptibility. He should not only possess these qualifications but should also appear to possess the same. 15. In the Encyclopedia of Democracy by Seymour Martin Lipset, Vol. The most elementary qualification demanded of a Minister is honesty and incorruptibility. He should not only possess these qualifications but should also appear to possess the same. 15. In the Encyclopedia of Democracy by Seymour Martin Lipset, Vol. 1, page 310, in the Chapter "Corruption'', it is stated that corruption is an abuse of public resources for private gain. The occasions for political corruption increases when control On the activity of public administrators are fragile and the division of power between political actors and the public bureaucrats, as well as between the Government and the middle man, is Unclear, It is difficult to discover and punish cases of corruption. Research has shown that political corruption tends to be more widespread in authoritarian or totalitarian regimes and when public opinion and the press are unable to denounce corruption. Corruption develops because of con-fusion about the borders between State and society and between traditional and modern values. It can be expected to grow during phases of transition. Corruption should disappear in modern stable democratic societies. In-stead, it is growing. Since State intervention in economic and social life has increased the occasions for political corruption, new technologies have increased the cost of electoral campaigns and the professionalisation of political careers has increased the number of those who have to make a living from politics rather than living for politics. Corruption has not disappeared. Corruption has dangerous consequences for politics. Al-though political corruption is more widespread in non-democratic regimes, it is particularly dangerous for democracy because' it undermines two of the major principles on which democracies are based; the equality of citizens' rights and the transparency of the political decision-making process; Bribes open the way for access to the State for those who are willing to pay and can afford the price. The situation may leave non-corrupt citizens with the belief that one "counts" only if one has the right personal contacts with those who hold power. Because of its illegal nature, corruption increases the range of public decision that are made in secrecy: It was suggested that internal controls on public bureaucracies through administrative controls and accounting procedures as well as ombudsman systems for public complaints, are remedies to control political corruption. Because of its illegal nature, corruption increases the range of public decision that are made in secrecy: It was suggested that internal controls on public bureaucracies through administrative controls and accounting procedures as well as ombudsman systems for public complaints, are remedies to control political corruption. The rules of Code of Conduct for political executives, public servants and private entrepreneurs, emphasising merit and regulated system of appointment in state bureaucracy and Stimulating pride in public service, would generate remedies for political corruption.” 18. From the discussion above, it is manifest that the entire procedure as adopted by the respondents stands vitiated on account of not following the mandatory procedure as prescribed under the Rules. Absence of power apart, such exercise of the respondents is fraught with danger of being activated by extraneous considerations. The action of the respondents, to say the least, is totally arbitrary. 19. In ordinary circumstances, this court would have cancelled all the route permits, but since petitioner too supposedly is a beneficiary of such grant in the past (as observed earlier by this court vide its order dated 15.11.2012), this court instead directs respondent No.4 to re-invite the applications for grant of route permits strictly as per procedure prescribed under the Rules within a period of four weeks from today. Till that time, arrangement as continuing as on date shall be continued. No other point urged. With these observations, petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh for onwards circulation to State Transport Authority as also all the Regional Transport Authorities and to ensure that henceforth all the route permits are granted strictly in accordance with law.” 15. Thereafter, in CWP No.3741 of 2020, titled Anand Moudgil Versus The Chairman State Transport Authority, Himachal Pradesh, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the case of the present petitioner only, who was aggrieved by the act of the Authorities of rejecting his Stage Carriage Route Applications on the ground that the same were suo motu submitted by the petitioner, held as under:- “ 2(i). Transport policy formulated in the year 2004 prescribed that all new routes identified in future will have at least 60% rural and interior roads for grant of Stage Carriage Permits. Transport policy formulated in the year 2004 prescribed that all new routes identified in future will have at least 60% rural and interior roads for grant of Stage Carriage Permits. No route permit will be granted for a route, which has more than 40% National/State Highway. All the Stage Carriage Route Permits applied for by the petitioner were completely on National/State Highways. Therefore, his application could not be allowed. 2(ii). In CWP No.7295 of 2012, titled Ajay Parihar Versus State of HP & Ors, following interim order was passed on 20.08.2012:- “There will be a direction to respondent No.1, 2 & 4 not to grant any route permits, for which applications have not been called for by the RTAs. In other words, without the State or RTA concerned first notifying route permit, there shall not be any grant of route permits as suggested or requested by operators.” While deciding the writ petition finally on 18.05.2016, it was held that the Regional Transport Authorities were arbitrarily indulging in dolling out route permits and such flagrant abuse and misuse of power cannot be countenanced. These authorities were not conferred or vested with any discretionary powers to do so and were required to strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed in the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1999. It will be apt to reproduce following relevant paras from the judgment:- “11. Unfortunately these principles have been violated in wholesome in the case in hand, whereby Regional Transport Authority has arbitrarily indulged in dolling out route permits. Such flagrant abuse and misuse of power cannot be countenanced. As a matter of fact, the Regional Transport Authority was not even conferred or even vested with any discretionary power and was thus required to have strictly adhered to the procedure as prescribed in the Rules. 12. Therefore, when an action is taken in furtherance of explicit power given by a statute, the legitimacy of invoking such power shall depend entirely upon the extent of achieving net and objective for which the statute enables the exercise of such power. 13. It is more than settled that law cannot be administered with an evil eye or with an unequal hand or for an oblique or unworthy performance and the arms of this court will be long enough to reach out and strike down such a view with a heavy hand. 14. 13. It is more than settled that law cannot be administered with an evil eye or with an unequal hand or for an oblique or unworthy performance and the arms of this court will be long enough to reach out and strike down such a view with a heavy hand. 14. The Regional Transport Authority, more particularly, the Regional Transport Officer could not have abused his/their power and trust under the camouflage of performance of their public duty and thereby in an arbitrary and illegal manner allotted route permits, that too by receiving suo motu applications in utter disregard and gross violation of the procedure contemplated under the Rules. 15. It needs to be reiterated that public offices, both big and small, are sacred trusts. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse and in case repositories of such offices surpass the rule, then the law is not that powerless and would step in to quash such arbitrary orders. 16. Respondent No.4, being a creation of statute, is admittedly a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and cannot, therefore, act like a private individual, who is free to act in a manner whatsoever he likes, unless it is interdicted or prohibited by law. It is settled that the State and its instrumentalities have to act strictly within the four corners of law and all its activities are government by Rules, regulations and instructions. It is more than settled that whenever a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, then the same must be done in that manner or not at all. 18. From the discussion above, it is manifest that the entire procedure as adopted by the respondents stands vitiated on account of not following the mandatory procedure as prescribed under the Rules. Absence of power apart, such exercise of the respondents is fraught with danger of being activated by extraneous considerations. The action of the respondents, to say the least, is totally arbitrary. 19. Absence of power apart, such exercise of the respondents is fraught with danger of being activated by extraneous considerations. The action of the respondents, to say the least, is totally arbitrary. 19. In ordinary circumstances, this court would have cancelled all the route permits, but since petitioner too supposedly is a beneficiary of such grant in the past (as observed earlier by this court vide its order dated 15.11.2012), this court instead directs respondent No.4 to re-invite the applications for grant of route permits strictly as per procedure prescribed under the Rules within a period of four weeks from today. Till that time, arrangement as continuing as on date shall be continued.” To comply with the directions issued in the judgment in Ajay Parihar’s case, supra, the respondent on 12.09.2014 constituted Route Formulation Committees at District Level and at Sub-Division Level for Stage Carriage. The Government of Himachal Pradesh has proposed to identify routes for plying of private bus operators and has notified a procedure in this regard. Petitioner has repeatedly submitted suo-moto applications on his own for grant of Stage Carriage Route Permits. Since these applications did not comply with the directions issued in the afore-extracted judgment and the provisions of Section 68(3)(ca) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, therefore, the same were rejected. Section 68(3)(ca) reads as under:- “[(ca) Government to formulate route for plying stage carriage; and]” 3. The petitioner appearing in person submits that reliance placed by the respondent on Transport Policy, 2004 for rejecting his application for grant of Stage Carriage Route Permits is wholly misplaced as it is the Transport Policy, 2014, which would govern the fate of his applications. He further submitted that the interim order dated 20.08.2012 passed in CWP No.7295 of 2012 stands automatically vacated upon decision of the writ petition on 18.05.2016. Therefore, his application could not have been rejected on the ground that it was submitted by him suo-moto. His last contention is that the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pancham Chand and others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 2008 (7) SCC 117 and Mithilesh Garg Versus Union of India and others, (1992) 1 SCC 168 , have been wrongly not considered by the respondent. These judgments clearly apply to the case of the petitioner and thus, makes him entitled to apply for Stage Carriage Route Permits. These judgments clearly apply to the case of the petitioner and thus, makes him entitled to apply for Stage Carriage Route Permits. Rejection of his application vide impugned order is not in consonance with law. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that both the Transport Policies, i.e. 2004 as well as 2014, contain a stipulation that new routes identified in future will have to have at least 60% rural and interior routes for grant of Stage Carriage Permits. Petitioner has not disputed this position. He has not even challenged Transport Policies either of 2004 or 2014. No rejoinder to the reply has been filed by him. Transport Policy 2014 has been placed by him on record of the case. Relevant extract from this policy is reproduced hereunder:- “6.1 Stage Carriage Passenger Transport: An efficient public transport is the need of a developing economy and its people. With the rising incomes, opening of new areas with development of roads, and industrial and tourism development; need for movement has risen manifold. The growth of passenger transport facilities have unfortunately not kept pace with the rising demand which has lead to the problems of overloading and use of contract carriage and private vehicles to meet the unmet demand. Our review of the current state of affairs in this segment shows that the passenger transport sector suffers from unclear and fragmented responsibilities for different aspects of the supply management of sector services and infrastructure, inadequate resource mobilization and suboptimal utilization of capacity. This has lead to wastage of time and money in moving people, high opportunity cost of resources used to maintain or expand infrastructure capacity or to subsidize certain services, poor safety outcomes causing human sufferings, economic loss and increase in inequalities, and adverse environmental impacts caused due to unplanned vehicular movement and inefficient use of non-renewable energy resources. The policy of 60:40 will be followed in the formation of new routes and the priority will be given in allocation of permits to ex-servicemen, cooperative societies, women and unemployed people. The policy initiatives in this segment are: a) A process of identification of roads, where either no services have been provided or are under served, will be done and an assessment of routes where the problem of overloading 7 exists will be completed within the next six months. The policy initiatives in this segment are: a) A process of identification of roads, where either no services have been provided or are under served, will be done and an assessment of routes where the problem of overloading 7 exists will be completed within the next six months. After this data is available, routes will be identified for publication under section 68(ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Private sector participation will also be solicited along with HRTC; b) Route planning exercise using the latest techniques used internationally will be done to rationalize the operation of buses and match the services with passenger demand; c) Introduction of latest luxury bus services within and outside the State including travel by air conditioned buses within the State on fares marginally higher than the normal passenger fare. For encouraging a trend towards this and making such operation economically viable, appropriate tax and non- tax incentives will be given; d) Encourage the use of latest Information Technology tools including vehicle tracking devices in both public as well as private sector transport services to ensure timely service delivery and real time Passenger Information System (PIS); e) It shall be the endeavour of the Govt. to promote seamless and cashless travel across the modes by introducing pre-paid smart cards based systems. Multi-utility smart within the State on fares marginally higher than the normal passenger fare. For encouraging a d) Encourage the use of latest Information Technology tools including vehicle tracking devices in both public as well as private sector transport services to ensure timely service delivery and real time Passenger Information System (PIS); e) It shall be the endeavour of the Govt. to promote seamless and cashless travel across the modes by introducing pre- paid smart cards based systems. Multi-utility smart card combining all transport needs will be explored within the next six months and piloted in the State; f) While strengthening the HRTC remains a priority, appropriate performance benchmarks will be developed to judge the performance of the Corporation. The Corporation will ensure provision of timely delivery of services at various points. For doing so, it shall undertake a comprehensive planning process which combines planning, travel demand, stake holder’s consultations and technological interventions with engineering aspects. g) Today, a time has come when the HRTC could strive for a brand image that clearly presents their services as a modern, efficient, reliable, convenient, comfortable and safe transport. For doing so, it shall undertake a comprehensive planning process which combines planning, travel demand, stake holder’s consultations and technological interventions with engineering aspects. g) Today, a time has come when the HRTC could strive for a brand image that clearly presents their services as a modern, efficient, reliable, convenient, comfortable and safe transport. Information flow to the travelling public will be improved both on quard combining all transport needs will be explored within the next six months and piloted in the State; f) While strengthening the HRTC remains a priority, appropriate performance benchmarks will be developed to judge the performance of the Corporation. The Corporation will ensure provision of timely delivery of services at various points. For doing so, it shall undertake a comprehensive planning process which combines route planning, travel demand, stake holder’s consultations and technological interventions with engineering aspects. g) Today, a time has come when the HRTC could strive for a brand image that clearly presents their services as a modern, efficient, reliable, convenient, comfortable and safe transport. Information flow to the travelling public will be improved both on quality and quantity terms so that a passenger gets real time data with regard to movement of each and every bus. Suitable display monitors will be installed in all the bus stands, important boarding and de-boarding points and through live data on its website; h) For matters relating to allotment of new routes to the private sector, comprehensive guidelines will be developed to handle issues relating to modification of routes, changes in 8 time table, transfer of permits, and deposit of permits etc. so that clarity and transparency is maintained in disposal of such requests; i) New services will be added to provide to and fro ‘last mile connectivity’ between passenger’s homes and bus terminals. Late night and early morning availability of such services shall be ensured.” Petitioner has not even disputed that six Stage Carriage Route Permits applied for by him are all 100% on National/State Highways. This ground alone is sufficient to reject his application. Further the order dated 20.08.2012 passed in CWP No.7295 of 2012 had directed the respondent not to grant any route permits for which the applications were not called for by the Regional Transport Authorities (RTAs). It was clearly directed in the order that RTA concerned has to first notify the route permit. Further the order dated 20.08.2012 passed in CWP No.7295 of 2012 had directed the respondent not to grant any route permits for which the applications were not called for by the Regional Transport Authorities (RTAs). It was clearly directed in the order that RTA concerned has to first notify the route permit. Route Permits were not to be granted on the suggestion or request of any operator. This position was not disturbed in para 19 of the final judgment dated 18.05.2016 passed in CWP No.7295 of 2012. As per the reply, the respondent has now constituted Committees at District and Sub-Division level for Stage Carriage Route Permits and has evolved a procedure for identification of bus routes. It is not the case of the petitioner that six Stage Carriage Route Permits were identified or notified by the respondent. Petitioner had applied for these route permits on his own. Being suo-moto application, it was rightly rejected by the respondent in light of order dated 20.08.2012 and judgment dated 18.05.2016 delivered in CWP No.7295 of 2012 and subsequent steps taken by the respondent. The judgments cited by the petitioner in the cases of Pancham Chand and Mithilesh Garg, supra, are in different context altogether. These do not pertain to the issue in hand. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner for plying six Stage Carriage Routes. The writ petition is, therefore, without any merit and is dismissed accordingly alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.” 16. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3741 of 2020, titled Anand Moudgil Versus The Chairman State Transport Authority, Himachal Pradesh, has been pleased to return categorical findings that vide order dated 30.08.2012, passed in CWP No.7295 of 2012, the Court had directed the respondents not to grant any Route Permit for which the applications were not called for by the Regional Transport Authority and that it was clearly directed in the order that Regional Transport Authority concerned, had to firstly notify the Route Permit, and Route Permits were not to be granted on the suggestion or request of any Operator and this position was not disturbed in Para-19 of the final judgment passed in CWP No.7295 of 2012, dated 18.05.2016. On these basis, Hon’ble Division Bench further held that the suo motu applications of the petitioner therein were rightly rejected. 17. On these basis, Hon’ble Division Bench further held that the suo motu applications of the petitioner therein were rightly rejected. 17. This Court is bound by the findings returned by the Hon’ble Division Bench in case referred to hereinabove, i.e. CWP No.3741 of 2020 and it cannot either quash the impugned orders, in terms whereof, the suo motu applications filed by the petitioner for grant of Stage Carriage Permit stand dismissed and rejected, nor it can issue any mandamus as is being sought by the petitioner. The submission of the petitioner that the Hon’ble Division Bench erred in passing this judgment cannot be considered by this Court as Judicial discipline demands that the Single Bench has to abide by the findings returned on same and similar issues by the Hon’ble Division Bench as it is binding upon the Single Bench. It was always open for the present petitioner, who was the petitioner in CWP No.3741 of 2020 to have had assailed the findings returned by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the said proceedings, but during the course of the hearing of this case it could not be demonstrated that these findings have not attained finality. 18. In light of the orders and judgments pronounced on the issue by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, as the same are binding on this Court, therefore, as obviously the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted to him, all these petitions are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.