ORDER
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.
1. In this group of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have challenged the competence of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to publish under Section 57(3), the applications submitted by the various applicants in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). All the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment as the question raised is common to all. The routes involved are different, but the facts, except the dates of various notifications, are more or less similar and, therefore, it is not necessary to set out here the facts of each individual matter. It would be sufficient if I state the facts of one writ petition, namely, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1537/86, M/s Jamindara Motor Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Superintendent, Government Central Press and Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner Region,Bikaner. The route involved in this petition is Ganganagar-Abhore inter-regional route. There was a scope of three permits and six return services. Three permits had been granted and were in operation. By the resolution dated the 19th Aug. 1985, the Regional' Transport Authority, Bikaner revised the scope and fixed it at 10 permits and 20 return services. On Oct. 10, 1985, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority issued a notification inviting applications for the stage carriage permits to fill the vacancies' so created. Thereafter, the applications so received were published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated the 13th Feb. 1986 by a notification issued on Dec. 26, 1986 by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority under Section 57(3) of the Act. In this notification the date before which the representations were to be submitted and the date on which the said application and the representations were to be considered were not mentioned, but it was said that the objections were to be filed within 30 days from the date of publication of this notification in the Gazette and that the said applications and the representations, if any, would be considered in a meeting to be notified afterwards.
2. In all the writ petitions it is a common ground that the scope of permits on the various route was revised by the Regional Transport Authority itself but the notification publishing the applications in the Gazette under Section 57(3) was issued in the name of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. The petitioners contend that under Section 57(3) of the Act the duty to publish the applications together with the notice of dates is assigned by the said section to the Regional Transport Authority and there being no delegation in favour of the Secretary in that behalf, the notification published by him in the Gazette was unauthorised and the Transport Authority derives no jurisdiction to consider in its meeting the applications so published.
3. In reply, the Regional Transport Authority has submitted that the notification, inviting applications for non temporary stage carriage permits, was issued by the Regional Transport Authority and published in the Rajasthan Gazette on Oct. 10, 1985 although the notification had been signed by itsSecretary. In response, 63 applications were received in respect of this route which included two applications made by the petitioner himself. All the applications so received were published as per the notification dated 26th Dec. 1985 in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated Feb. 13, 1986. It is admitted that the notification was signed by the Secretary. It was stated that on account of the increase in scope 467 vacancies involving 191 routes came into existence and the same were required to be filled in by the Authority. It was submitted that the publication of the applications by the Secretary, on behalf of the Regional Transport Authority, was purely a ministerial action and it did not require any delegation or authorisation by the authority.
4. The question for consideration is whether the publication of the applications for non temporary stage carriage permits in the Gazette, as required by Section 57(3) of the Act by the Secretary was no publication in the eye of law and therefore the said application could not be considered by the Regional Transport Authority for the grant of permits.
5. In order to decide this question it would be proper to glance through the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Act is a complete Code in itself. Chapter IV of the Act contains the scheme for the issuance of various types of permits, namely, stage carriage permits, contract carriage permits, Private Carriers permit, Public Carrier's permit and temporary permit. Section 42 of the Act enacts that no owner of a transport vehicle shall use a vehicle in any public place except on the authority of a permit granted by a Regional Transport Authority. Section 45 provides that every application for a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle. Section 46 prescribes what particulars an application for a stage carriage permit should contain. Section 47 lays down the procedure which the Authority should follow and also the matters which it should take into account while considering the said applications. Section 48 confers upon the Regional Transport Authority the power to grant or refuse a stage carriage permit and whilegrunting a permit to attach conditions mentioned in Sub-section (3). The procedure for contract carriage permits is given in Sections 50, 51 and 52 and the grant of private carrier and public carrier permits is dealt with in Sections 54 to 56. Section 44deals with the constitution of the authorities, namely, the Stage Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority. The Regional Transport Authority is to be constituted by the State Government. Sub-section (2) of Section 44 says that a Regional Transport Authority shall consist of a Chairman and such other persons not being less than two, as the State Government may think fit to appoint. A proviso is, however, enacted authorising the State Government to constitute the Regional Transport Authority for any region so as to consist of only one member. It further empowers the State Government to make rules to provide for the transaction of business by the Authority. Sub-section (5) provides that the Regional Transport Authority, if authorised in this behalf by the rules, may delegate such of its powers and functions to any person or authority and subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be prescribed by the said rules. Section 57 also prescribes procedure for making of applications and granting of permits. Subsections (2) to (7) of Section 57 are relevant for our purposes, and the same are extracted below : --
'Section 57 Procedure in applying for and granting permits.
(1) ..........................
(2) An application for a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit shall be made not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall take effect, or, if the Regional Transport Authority appoints dates for the receipt of such applications, on such dates.
(3) On receipt of an application for a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, the Regional Transport Authority shall make the application available for inspection at the office of the Authority and shall publish the application or the substance thereof in the prescribed manner together with a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted and the date, not being less than thirty days fromsuch publication, on which, and the time and place at which, the application and any representations received will be considered :
Provided that, if the grant of any permit in accordance with the application or with modifications would have the effect of increasing the number of vehicles operating in the region, or in any area or on any route within the region, under the class of permits to which the application relates, beyond the limit fixed in that behalf under Sub-section (3) of Section 47 or Sub-section (2) of Section 55, as the case may be, the Regional Transport Authority may summarily refuse the application without following the procedure laid down in this sub-section.
(4) No representation in connection with an application referred to in Sub-section (3) shall be considered by the Regional Transport Authority unless it is made in writing before the appointed date and unless a copy thereof is furnished simultaneously to the applicant by the person making such representation.
(5) When any representation such as is referred to in Sub-section (3) is made, the Regional Transport Authority shall dispose of the application at a public hearing at which the applicant and the person making the representation shall have an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a duly authorised representative.
(6) When any representation has been made by the persons or authorities referred to in Section 50 to the effect that the number of con tract, carriages for which permits have already been granted in any region or any area within a region is sufficient for or in excess of the needs of the region or of such area, whether such representation is made in connection with particular application for the grant of a contract carriage permit or otherwise, the Regional Transport Authority may take any such steps as it considers appropriate for the hearing of the representation in the presence of any persons likely to be affected thereby.
(7) When a Regional Transport Authority refuses an application for a permit of any kind, it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal.'
Other provisions which need to be noticed are Sections 62 and 68. Section 62 authorises the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporarypermits and Section 68 empowers the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter IV.
6. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 68 the State Government framed the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). As per Rule 77(c); the Regional Transport Authority is required to meet not less then once in each month. Rule 78 prescribes the procedure for the conduct of business by the Transport Authorities. The procedure envisages conduct of business in a meeting, as also by the process of circulation. A significant fact which needs to be noted is that the agenda of a meeting is to be laid before the authorities by the Secretary. Rule 80 empowers the Regional Transport Authority that it may decline to receive any further applications if the number of permits already granted exceeds the limit prescribed. Rule 81 lays down the procedure to be followed in the matter of publication of the applications as required by Section 57(3) and Rule 82 lays down the procedure for the hearing of applications and objections. Rule 83 provides the forms in which the applications a re to be made and further says that the applications shall be addressed to the Secretary of the authority. Sub-rules (a) to (d) and (i) of Rule 78 and Rule 81 are relevant and the same are reproduced as under :
'78. Transport authorities -- conduct of business of -- (a) Subject to the provisions of the Act and these rules and to the approval of the Government, 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 power to amend such bye-laws and the business of such authority shall be conducted accordingly under the direction of the Chairman.
(b) The Secretary shall lay before a Regional or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, the agenda to be considered at any meeting.
(c) Save in the case of hearing of an objection to the grant of a stage carriage permit or of a public carrier's permit and in the case of the hearing of representation underSub-section (6) of Section 57 of the Act, the State or a Regional Transport Authority as the case 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.
(d) In the event of circulation, the Secretary shall send to each member of the authority such particulars of the matter as may be reasonably necessary in order to enable the member to arrive at a decision, and shall specify the date by which the votes of members are to be received in the office of the authority. Upon receipt of the votes of members as aforesaid, the Secretary shall lay the papers before the Chairman who shall record the decision by endorsement in the form of application or other document, as the case may be according to the votes received and the vote or votes cast by the chairman. 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 of the authority, at a regularly constituted meeting of the authority. No decision shall be made by circulation if, before the date by which the votes of members are required to reach the office of the authority, 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.
(e) to (h) xxx xxx xxx
(i) The State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority may, by a general or special resolution delegate subject to such conditions and restrictions as it may think properany of the powers and functions specified below to the offices and authorities mentioned below : --
1. To the Secretary R.T.A./S.T.A.
(a) Power to grant or refuse to grant a private carrier's permit under Section 42 or 53 of the Act;
(b) Powers to renew private carriers permit and contract carriages permit under Section 58 of the Act;
(c) Power to compound any case of breach or infringement of the provisions of the Act or the Rules under Section 60(3) (iii) & (iv) of the Act.
(d) Power to regulate the time-table of Stage-Carriages under Section 48(3) (iii) & (iv) of the Act;
(e) Power to issue notice to the holder of a permit under Section 60 of the Act;
(f) Powers to permit replacement of one vehicle by any other vehicle or better model under Section 59(2) of the Act;
(g) Powers to issue temporary permit under Section 62 of the Act;
(h) Powers to countersign permit of other States in pursuance of Inter-State Agreements under Section 63 of the Act;
II. To a Registering authority within its jurisdiction all or any of its power under Section 62 of the Act regarding the grant of temporary permits.'
'81. Applications -- Publication of :-- (a) Further to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 57 of the Act, upon receipt of an application for stage carriage permit for a public carrier's permit the Secretary of a Regional Transport Authority shall post a copy of the application, together with the notice of the date before which representations may be submitted and of the date appointed for consideration on a suitable notice board situated on the premises of the authority.
(b) It shall be a sufficient compliance with the provisions of Sub-sections (3) of Section 57 of the Act if the particulars specified in that sub-section are published in the Rajasthan Gazette, and posted on the notice board of the Office of the Regional Transport Authority not less than seven days before the date appointed for the receipt of representations.
(c) If upon publication of particulars of an application in respect of a stage carriage permit or of a public carrier's permit as aforesaid no representation is received in connection therewith within the specified period, the application may, if the Chairman so directs, be submitted for the decision of the authority by circulation.'
7. What do the provisions extracted above reveal On the one hand duties and functions assigned by the provisions of the Act, like granting of permits under Section 47 are such which involve serious application of mind and are required to be discharged by the Authorityitself in its meeting, while on the other hand there are duties and functions which are purely, routine and formal and are meant to be carried out by the office and it is not necessary for the Authority to meet for the purposes. Take a case, where the Regional Transport Authority consist of a Chairman and two other members and usually meet once in a month. All work will come to a standstill if even routine normal work is insisted upon to be performed by the Authority itself. Rule 78(b) authorises the Secretary to lay before the Authority the agenda to be considered at its; meeting. Laying the agenda obviously includes the preparing of and placing the same before the Authority. Rule 83 requires that the Application for a permit shall be addressed to the Secretary. These provisions are a pointer to the fact that routine and day today matters are left to be dealt with by the Secretary, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority. The duties and functions required to be discharged by the Regional Transport Authority can, broadly, be broken up into two categories, namely,
(a) duties and functions which the Regional Transport Authority must itself discharge either in a meeting or by the process of circulation as prescribed by Rule 78; and
(b) duties and functions which are purely ministerial and routine in nature and may appropriately be carried out by the office.
8. True, the duties and functions which are judicial, quasi judicial and/or of a nature which need application of mind must necessarily be performed by the Regional Transport Authority itself. For the purpose, of deciding the present group of writ petitions it would not be necessary to define and determine what duties and functions need application of mind and which are purely ministerial in nature. Only a limited question whether the act of publishing the applications as require by Section 57(3) is ministerial in nature and can be done by the Secretary is involved in the present petitions. I, therefore, propose not to go into the wider and broader question of categorising the various duties and functions of the Regional Transport Authority, but to confine myself to the question involved herein. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have pointed out that along with the publication of the applications a notice ofthe dates before which any representation could be submitted and the date on which the applications and the representations would be considered is also required to be published by the Authority. The fixing of the dates, submits learned counsel is a function which needs application of mind and must, therefore, be discharged by the Authority itself. Learned counsel has further pointed out that as per the proviso, if the grant of any permit is going to exceed the scope fixed in that behalf under Sub-section (3) of Section 47, the Regional Transport Authority has a power to dismiss the application summarily. According to the learned counsel this again is a function which has to be performed by the Authority itself. These requirements according to the learned counsel show that the publication of the applications under Section 57(3) of the Act is not a mere mechanical function and must, therefore, be carried out by the Regional Transport Authority itself. It is submitted that the provisions of Section 57(3) are mandatory in nature and if the applications were not published in the manner prescribed by the said provisions the Authority would be incompetent to consider the same in its meeting.
9. The act of publishing the applications must not be confused with the power to refuse summarily the applications under the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 57. The two are quite distinct and separate. No complaint or grievance is voiced in any of the petitions that the Regional Transport Authority failed to carry out its obligation enjoined upon it by the said proviso. Similarly, the fixation of dates-must not be confused with the act of publishing the applications and the notice of dates. May be, the dates are to be fixed by the Regional Transport Authority itself. But the act of publishing the applications is purely ministerial in nature. None of the petitions in the present group allege that the dates envisaged under Section 57(3) were fixed by the Secretary and not by the authority itself. The factual position rather reveals that in the notification publishing the applications it is said that the objections may be filed within 30 days of the date of publication of the notification and that the said applications and the representations or objections, if any, would be considered in a meeting to benotified afterwards. This court in Zahoor Ahmed Mohammad Shafi v. The Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, 1967 Raj LW 169 has held that two separate notifications about the two dates envisaged in Sub-section (3) of Section 57 are not illegal.
10. The Act of publishing the scheme under Section 68(c) was held to be an act of ministerial in nature by the Supreme Court in J. Y. Kondala Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1961 SC 82. In this case it was said : --
'The act of publishing in the official gazette is a ministerial act. It does not involve any exercise of discretion. It is only a mechanical one to be carried out in the course of day to day administration. So understood, there cannot be any difficulty in holding that it was purely a ministerial act which the Chief Executive Officer by reason of the aforesaid resolution can discharge under Section 12(c) of the Road Transport Corporation Act.'
11. In Abdul Gafoor v. State of Mysore, AIR 1961 SC 1556 the Supreme Court held that while dealing with an application of the State Transport undertaking under Section 68-F(l) the Regional Transport Authority acts wholly in a ministerial capacity.
12. In M.P. Road Transport Corporation v. State Transport Appellate Authority, AIR 1974 Madh Pra 44, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, dealing with the question whether the Assistant Secretary, Regional Transport Authority could exercise the powers of cancelling a permit, held that the route being an exclusive route no other operator could be permitted to operate his vehicles and, therefore, the cancellation of the permit was more or less automatic and merely a ministerial act not required to be performed by the State Transport Authority itself. It was said : --
'Thus it is clear that the State Transport Authority while acting under Section 68-F (2) is not required to performany judicial or quasi-judicial functions but the action is purely ministerial. In this view of the matter the question of authorisation by rules framed as required by Section 44(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 does not at all arise.
The authorisation by the rules would benecessary where the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority is required to act judicially or quasi-judicially. So far as the ministerial or mechanical action pursuant to the finalisation of a scheme is concerned, it does not involve any judicial or quasi-judicial process, but is purely an administrative matter. Therefore, the State Transport Authority could certainly, by an administrative order direct the Assistant Secretary to perform some of the functions. It is not disputed that the first respondent had the necessary administrative authority in his favour to act in such matters on behalf of the State Transport Authority. Consequently, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned is without jurisdiction. In our opinion, it does not suffer from any legal infirmity and it was within the competence of the first respondent to pass such an order on the strength of administrative authority given by the State Transport Authority.'
13. In M. Nanjappa v. Karanataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1975 Kant 238 the applications under Section 57(3) together with the notice of dates were published in the gazette undera notification which was signed by a person as in charge secretary to the Regional Transport Authority. It was urged that the entire proceedings before the Regional Transport Authority were liable to be set aside as being without jurisdiction. E.S. Venkataramiah, J., as he then was, held :-
'From the provisions of the Act and the Rules it cannot be inferred that the jurisdiction of the Authority to consider the applications for the grant of stage carriage permits would depend upon the validity of the notice published in the gazette and that any kind of error in the notice would affect the jurisdiction of the R.T.A. The purpose of publishing a notice in the Gazette is to give notice to all concerned that an application had been made to the Authority and to invite objections and representations to it. The publication of the notice is purely a ministerial act.'
14. After a careful consideration of the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the decisions cited above, I am of the view thatthe act of publishing the applications under Section 57(3) of the Act does not require any application of mind by the Regional Transport Authority. It is purely a ministerial act. No specific authorisation of the Authority in favour of the Secretary is needed for the purposes and the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority is fully competent to publish the applications. I do not find any lack of legal authority in the Secretary to publish the same in the gezette.
15. Moreover, Rule 81 enjoins upon the Secretary that on receipt of the application for stage carriage permit he shall post a copy of the application together with the notice of dates on a notice board situated on the premises of the Authority. This rule prescribes the mode of publication and authorises the Secretary to carry out the said function. Sub-rule (b) of Rule 81 provides that it shall be a sufficient compliance of Section 57(3), if the particulars specified in that sub-section are published in the Rajasthan Gazette and posted on the notice board of the office of the Authority. The mode prescribed by sub-rule (b) is an alternative mode and naturally therefore, the authority to publish the notification conferred by Sub-rule (a) of Rule 81 on the Secretary would also extend to the publication of the notification in the Gazette in terms of sub-rule (b). The expression further' to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 57 of the Act used in Sub-rule (a) of Rule 81 is used in the sense of 'in compliance to or to give effect to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 57 of the Act'. Rule 81, therefore, contains the mode and manner of publication pf the notification required to be issued under Section 57(3) of the Act. This rule, in terms, authorises the Secretary to post the notification on the notice board of the authority. It is thus clear that the Secretary did not lack legal authority in publishing the applications in the gazette. Learned counsel for the respondent has also urged that the act of publishing the application in the gazette by the Secretary has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. There is substance in this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. No prejudice, at all, has been' alleged, much less proved, in any of the petitions. The object of publishing the applications in the gazette is to allow timefor representation or objections being madeby the parties affected by the grant of permit.It makes no difference if the notification ispublished by the Secretary and not by theRegional Transport Authority itself. In SonikIndustries, Rajkot v. Municipal Council ofCity of Rajkot (Civil Appeal No. 1242/80decided on April 2, 1986) (reported in AIR1986 SC 1518), R. S. Pathak, J. dealing withthe requirements of publishing a notice underSection 77 of the Bombay Municipal Borough Act, 1925 held and observed : --
'Section 77 requires that the sanctioned rules should be published by the Municipality in the Municipal Borough together with the notice reciting the sanction. The notice published in the newspaper mentioned that the 'Rules of Rajkot Borough Municipality for the levy of Rate (Tax) levied on Buildings and Lands' had been sanctioned by the State Government and the notice recited also the date and serial number of the sanction. It was open to the Municipality to publish the sanctioned rules also in the newspaper, but what it did was to state in the notice that the rules could be inspected in the Municipal office, and also that copies of the rules could be purchased at the Municipal Office. In our opinion, the requirement of Section 77 was complied with inasmuch as information was thereby given to all persons holding buildings and immovable property within the Municipal limits of Rajkot that the rules mentioned therein had been sanctioned by the State Government and that the rules could be inspected in the Municipal Office. The mandatory requirement of Section 77 was that the rules should be published and it seems to us that the notice satisfies those requirements. The mode of publishing the rules is a matter for directory or substantial compliance. It is sufficient if it is reasonably possible for persons affected by the rules to obtain, with fair diligence, knowledge of those rules through the mode specified in the notice. Had the Act itself specified the mode in which the rules were to be published, that mode would have to be adopted for publishing the rules. In the opinion of the Legislature, that was the mode through which the inhabitants of the Municipality could best be informed of the rules. But the Act is silent as to this, Section 102 specified the modes in which service of a notice contemplated by the Act should beserved. There is nothing in the section prescribing the mode for publishing the rules in question here. Nor does Section 24 of the Bombay General Clauses Act help us. We must, therefore, fall back upon the general principle that if the mode of publication adopted is sufficient for persons, affected by the rules, with reasonable diligence to be acquainted with them, publication of the rules has taken place in comtemplation of the law.'
It is thus evident that the act of publishing the applications in the gazette is an act purely ministerial in nature. The Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority in publishing the said applications in the gazette did not lack legal authority. In any event no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by the publication of the applications by the Secretary. There is, therefore, no impediment to the consideration by the Regional Transport Authority of the applications so published.
16. Counsel for the petitioners have next urged that the notification inviting the applications under Section 57(2) of the Act was also issued by the Secretary and it was wholly unauthorised. Apart from the fact that no specific prayer for quashing the notification issued under Section 57(2) is made in most of writ petitions, the contention urged by the counsel for the petitioners is liable to be rejected on the short ground that the application under Section 57(2) of the Act for the grant of stage carriage permits could be filed voluntarily and without any notification being issued in, that behalf. Further, after the scope for permits was revised and enhanced by the Regional Transport Authority itself, the act of publishing the notice inviting applications was purely ministerial in nature. There is no dispute that the scope on the various routes involved in the present writ petitions was revised by the Regional Transport Authority itself. In R. Srihari Naidu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1985 UJ (SC) 709 : (AIR 1985 SC 864) Tulzapurkar J. has said :-
In our view the first contention is liable to be rejected on three grounds. In the first place it was not disputed that applications under Section 57(2) of the Act for the grant of stage carriage permits could be filed voluntarily and without any Notification beingissued in that behalf. If that be so, the question whether a fresh Notification inviting fresh applications by the properly constituted Regional Transport Authority ought to have been issued or not or whether the properly constituted Regional Transport Authority could proceed to act on the earlier Notification issued by the Secretary would be immaterial and of no consequence and the ultimate decision not to grant stage carriage permit to the appellant cannot be disturbed on this ground.'
The contention urged on behalf of the petitioners has no merit and deserves to be rejected.
17. Shri R. R. Vyas appearing in S. B. Civil Writ petition No. 1543/86, Jagdish Rai v. Regional Transport Authority and 1924/86 Yasin Khan v. Regional Transport Authority, has contended that in the agenda of the meeting published by the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner on June 5, 1986 the applications published as back as on 10th April, 1986 by the Notification dated the 5th March, 1986 have not been included, although these applications were ripe for consideration. Rather, the subsequent applications published on April 17, 1986 have been included in the Agenda. Learned counsel urges that this is clearly discriminatory and deprives the petitioners the benefit of simultaneous consideration. The facts alleged by the petitioners are not disputed by the respondents. All the applications which have become ripe for consideration must be considered together and it was incumbent upon the Regional Transport Authority to include in the agenda all the applications which had become ripe for consideration. This has not been done and the R.T.A. must, therefore, republish the agenda and include therein all the applications which have become ripe for consideration.
18. The result is that all the writ petitions, except S. B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1543/86 and 1924/86 are dismissed. The writ petitions Nos. 1543/86 and 1924/86 are partly allowed; the agenda of the meeting published by the notification dated the 5th June, 1986 is struck down, and the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner is directed to republish the agenda by incorporating therein all those applicationspublished under Section 57(3) of the Act which have become ripe for consideration in the meeting to be held by the Regional Transport 'Authority.
19. There shall be no order as to costs.