Void statutory action: expired members could not issue a valid permit, and later executive notification could not cure the defect.

A stage carriage permit issued by a statutory transport authority was void because the members' term had expired and the body was no longer lawfully constituted, so it lacked jurisdiction to act. A later executive notification could not retrospectively cure that defect because no express retrospective power was shown in the parent enactment. A direct writ challenge remained maintainable despite prior participation and a pending appeal, since the defect went to the root of the order and was not a collateral attack. The impugned permit could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the stage carriage permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority was invalid because the members' term had expired and the authority was not lawfully constituted when the order was passed; (ii) Whether a later executive notification could retrospectively validate the action of the authority; (iii) Whether the petitioner was barred from challenging the order on the grounds of de facto authority, prior participation, or pendency of an appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the stage carriage permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority was invalid because the members' term had expired and the authority was not lawfully constituted when the order was passed.

Analysis: The authority under the statute had to be constituted with its personnel in office and capable of acting. Once the members' term expired, they became functus officio and could not validly represent the authority. An order passed by such a body was without legal authority and therefore void.

Conclusion: The permit order was invalid for want of a lawfully constituted authority.

Issue (ii): Whether a later executive notification could retrospectively validate the action of the authority.

Analysis: The later notification was only an executive act and not an exercise of delegated legislative power expressly authorising retrospective operation. In the absence of such power, retrospective validation could not cure an action already taken without authority.

Conclusion: The later notification could not retrospectively validate the impugned order.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioner was barred from challenging the order on the grounds of de facto authority, prior participation, or pendency of an appeal.

Analysis: The challenge was a direct attack under Article 226 on the validity of the order, not a collateral attack. The petitioner was held not to have known of the defect when appearing before the authority, and the absence of jurisdiction went to the root of the matter. Pendency of an appeal did not bar the High Court's jurisdiction in these circumstances.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not barred from maintaining the challenge.

Final Conclusion: The impugned permit could not stand and the petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: An order made by a statutory authority whose members have ceased to hold office is void for lack of jurisdiction, and an executive notification cannot retrospectively confer validity on such an order unless retrospective power is expressly authorised by the parent enactment; a direct writ challenge to such want of jurisdiction is maintainable notwithstanding prior participation where the defect was unknown.

---