1. M. R. KHAN, J.-This appeal by special leave is from the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench. Dismissing the appellant's writ petition challenging the validity of the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, passed in an appeal under the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965.
2. The Regional Transport Authority, Peshawar, invited applica--tions for the grant of two particular stage carriage permits for the route between Koh at Chorlaki Shadipur Niizampur Attock, the total distance of the Route between 71 miles. Haji Noor Ali (appellant) and" Iqbal Badshah (respondent NG. 2 herein), among others, applied for these route permits. The Regional Transport Authority published the applications as required by section 59'of the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 (herein--after called the Ordinance). After considering these applications and hearing the parties, the Regional Transport Authority granted two particular stage-carriage permits to the appellant for a part of the advertised route lying between Kohat and Toristani which covered a distance of 47 miles out of 71 miles of the advertised route. 'The permits for the said part of the route were given for the reason that remaining part of the route was not still then fit for bus traffic. The respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal to the Member, Board of Revenue against the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting two particular stage carriage permits to the appellant. In his appeal, the respondent No. 2 prayed for the relief: "It is, therefore, prayed that the grant in favour of the respondent No. 2 (the appellant herein) be kindly set aside and the same be made in favour of the appellant (respondent No. 2)."
3. The learned Member, Board of Revenue took the view that it was necessary for the Regional Transport Authority to re--advertise the modified route, that is, the route between Kohat-- Toristani before granting the permits for that route to the appellant. In that view of the matter, the learned Member allowed the appeal and directed the Regional Transport Authority to arrange a proper survey of the modified route and to decide afresh the question of grant of permits in respect of that route. Being aggrieved by this order of the learned Member of the Board of Revenue; the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 98 of the 1962-Constitution challenging the validity of that order.
4. "Having given our careful thought to the respective conten--tions of the parties' counsel we incline to the view that the impugned order is in excess of the jurisdiction of the learned MBR having regard to the limited scope of the appellate juris--diction vesting in him under section 121 (2) set out above."
5. Notwithstanding the above finding, the learned Judges dis--missed the writ petition instead of quashing the order of the Member, Board of Revenue and remanding the case for a fresh decision on the merits of the claims of the two rival claimants.
6. Leave was granted in this case to consider whether the learned Judges of the High Court were right in dismissing the writ petition in spite of their finding that the Member, Board of Revenue acted in excess of his jurisdiction.
7. It appears that while granting the two particular stage---carriage permits to the appellant, the Regional Transport Authority had observed that the question of extending the permits up to Attock would be considered later after the road between Toristani and Attock became fit for bus traffic. In dismissing the writ petition, the learned Judges appeared to have been influenced by the above observation of the Regional Transport Authority. They thought that the road between Toristani and Attock might have since become lit for bus traffic and that the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, though made in excess of his jurisdic--tion, would afford an opportunit3- for a fresh assessm ent of the situation including the consideration of the claims of the appellant and the respondent and possibly of other applicants. In that view of the matter, the learned Judges dismissed the writ petition and maintained the order of the Member, Board of Revenue. While these considerations weighed with the learned Judges, it was not fully realized that the acceptance of the appeal by the Member, Board of Revenue amounted to cancellation of the route permits granted to the appellant by the Regional Transport Authority, without determining the rival claims of the appellant and the respondent No. 2 on merits. Thus, the order of the Member, Board of Revenue passed in excess of his jurisdiction ,seriously affected the rights of the appellant. No order of a Court, tribunal or other authority made without jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction which affects the rights of any one can be sustained in law. In this view of the matter, the order of the Member, Board of Revenue cannot be allowed to prevail. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and also the order of the Member, Board of Revenue and remand the case to the Member for its disposal in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible before the expiry of the route permits of the appellant. There will be no order as to costs.