IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1507 of 2001 Anil Kumar Singh, son of Shri Shivjee Singh, at Shivjee Colony, P.S. Sadar in the town and District- Purnea. ...Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The State Transport Authority, Bihar, Patna, through Secretary with its office at Visheshwaria Bhawan at Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Chairman, State Transport Authority, Bihar Visheshwaria Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Secretary, State Transport Authority, Bihar, Visheshwaria Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. Smt. Indrajeet Kour, W/o Sardar Pritpal Singh, Village- Nauratan, District-Purnea. ... Respondents. ----------- 04- 20.08.2009 None appears on behalf of the parties. The petitioner of CWJC No. 10524 of 2001 (Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others), has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and is aggrieved by the order dated 3.10.2001, whereby the writ petition was dismissed. 2. We have perused the materials on record. It appears that respondent no.5 (Indrajeet Kour) was the holder of a permanent stage carriage permit for inter-State route from Katihar to Balurghat for the period 14.6.1992 to 13.4.1997. During the subsistence of the licence the authorities had issued an advertisement for issuance of fresh licence for the same route. Respondent no.5 challenged the same before the Authority concerned, who rejected her application. Respondent no.5 challenged the same before the Transport Tribunal which was allowed, and 2 the matter was remitted back to the Authority below to re-consider the whole matter which was again rejected. Respondent no.5 challenged the order by preferring C.W.J.C. No.12907 of 1999 (Indrajeet Kaur vs. State of Bihar and others), which was allowed by order dated 7.8.2000, and the matter was again remitted back to the Authority for re-consideration. The Authority on this occasion did come to the conclusion that the advertisement was erroneously made in a situation where the permit was still subsisted. The present appellant challenged the same by preferring the aforesaid C.W.J.C. No.10524 of 2001, which has been rejected by the impugned order. It is thus evident from the chronology of events that the authorities erroneously issued advertisement for grant of fresh permit during the period it was subsisting in favour of respondent no.5, and it was ultimately held unjustified by the learned first Authority as well as in the said C.W.J.C. No.10524 of 2001. We entirely agree with the order of the learned Single Judge. 3. This appeal is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.) S.K.Pathak/