Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.4497 of 2025, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 decision taken by the 1st respondent Regional Transport Authority, Pathanamthitta, in its meeting held on 24.10.2024, as Item No.39, and a declaration that there is no power of review conferred upon the 1st respondent so as to review its earlier decision taken on 13.06.2024 as Item No.43, and to revoke the same, and also to entertain a modified application from the 3rd respondent, as it is against the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules made thereunder.

2. On 13.10.2025, when W.P.(C)No.4497 of 2025 came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge disposed of the same, by the judgment dated 13.10.2025, which reads thus;

                  “The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 decision of the RTA, Pathanamthitta, dated 24.10.2025, which granted a variation of the existing route in respect of the stage carriage under KL 36 9099 operated by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P3, the remedy lies in filing a revision under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

                  2. The petitioner shall file a revision within two weeks from today. The time spent before this Court from 03.02.2025 to this date shall be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. Taking note of the fact that an interim order was passed by this Court staying the operation of the impugned order on 27.02.2023, which is still in force, the same shall continue for a further period of three weeks from today. All the contentions of the parties are left open.

                  The Writ petition is disposed of as above.”

3. Challenging the judgment dated 13.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.4497 of 2025, the appellant- petitioner is before this Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

4. On 11.11.2025, when this writ appeal came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader and also the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent sought time to get instructions. By the order dated 11.11.2025, this Court granted an interim order staying the operation and all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 decision taken by the 1st respondent Regional Transport Officer, for a period of three weeks.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner would contend that since the 1st respondent Regional Transport Authority has no power to review its own decision, Ext.P3 decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 24.10.2024, as Item No.39, which was under challenge in W.P.(C)No.4497 of 2025, was one issued by the said respondent, absolutely without any jurisdiction, and in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge went wrong in not interfering with the said decision.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would contend that the 1st respondent Regional Transport Authority has revoked its earlier decision by Ext.P3 decision taken in its meeting held on 24.10.2024, as Item No.39, for the reasons stated therein, and the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with in not interfering with Ext.P3 decision in the impugned judgment dated 13.10.2024. We also heard arguments of the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.

8. In Patel Narshi  Thakershi  v.  Shri. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji [(1971) 3 SCC 844] a Three- Judge Bench of the Apex Court reiterated that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law, either specifically or by necessary implication. If the Government had no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate would not have reviewed its order. On the facts of the case at hand, the Apex Court observed that the question as to whether the Government order is correct or valid in law does not arise for consideration in the proceedings before the said Court, so long as that order is not set aside or declared void by a competent authority.

9. In Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania [(2010) 9 SCC 437] after taking note of the decisions on the point, the Apex Court reiterated that in the absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the grab of clarification/modification/correction is not permissible.

10. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that in the absence of a statutory provision providing for review, the 1st respondent Regional Transport Authority committed a grave error in revoking its earlier decision taken on 13.06.2024, as Item No.43, vide Ext.P3 decision taken on 24.10.2024, as Item No.39.

11. In Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy [(2023) 3 SCC 502] the Apex Court held that the statutory body can do only such acts as are authorised by the statute creating it. The powers of such body cannot extend beyond what the statute provides expressly or by necessary implication.

12. In the absence of any authorisation under the relevant statute, the 1st respondent Regional Transport Authority, which cannot exercise powers beyond the relevant statutory provisions, committed a grave error in revoking its earlier decision taken on 13.06.2024, as Item No.43, vide Ext.P3 decision taken on 24.10.2024, as Item No.39.

13. Therefore, we find no reason to sustain the impugned judgment dated 13.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.4497 of 2025, whereby interference was declined on Ext.P3 decision taken by the 1st respondent Regional Transport Authority, revoking its earlier decision absolutely without any jurisdiction.

                  In the result, this writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 13.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.4497 of 2025 and the said writ petition is allowed by setting aside Ext.P3 decision dated 24.10.2024 of the 1st respondent Regional Transport Authority; however, without prejudice to the legal right, if any, of the 3rd respondent to approach the 1st respondent Regional Transport Authority with a modified application for variation of the existing route in respect of stage carriage bearing Registration No.KL-36/9099.