Ministerial duty to implement final transport permit orders prevails over later policy changes and retrospective amendment.

A Regional Transport Authority had no discretion to refuse stage carriage permits after the Appellate Tribunal's final order had already directed grant of the permits, subject only to compliance with specified conditions. Once those conditions were met within time, the authority's role was purely ministerial and the applications were no longer pending in law. A later policy notification postponing consideration of pending applications could not defeat a concluded tribunal decision, and the retrospective amendment of 1976 did not nullify the valid final order, especially where the special review procedure under that amendment had not been invoked. Mandamus therefore lay to enforce implementation, and the permits were directed to be issued.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Regional Transport Authority was bound to issue stage carriage permits in implementation of the Appellate Tribunal's final order notwithstanding the later policy notification and retrospective amendment, and whether mandamus should issue to enforce that duty.

Analysis: The applications for permit had already been finally disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the appeals and directed grant of permits subject only to compliance with specified conditions. After compliance within time, nothing substantive remained for determination by the Regional Transport Authority; its role was only to carry out a ministerial act. A later notification postponing consideration of pending applications could not apply where the applications were no longer pending in law. The retrospective amendment of 1976 did not nullify the Tribunal's valid and final order, and the special review or direction procedure contemplated by that amendment had not been invoked. The authority therefore had no discretion to refuse implementation of the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion: The refusal to issue the permits was unlawful, and mandamus was rightly held to lie; the appeals succeeded and the permits were directed to be issued.

---