https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288377 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. en-us Mon, 31 Oct 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jun 2020 15:02:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288377 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 31 Oct 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288377