( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of Certiorari quashing the order passed by the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal in appeal No. 554 of 1966.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner Is that ho was plying a Stage Carriage Service from Koppal to kawloor via Halligere, Wadegenhal, Handral, Mianalli and Alwandi. He had filed an application on September 80, 1965, before the Regional Transport Authority, Raichur, for variation of the existing route and timings. The change in the route was that instead of going from Wadegenhal to Mainalli via Handral, it should be via Hiresindogi. The application was duly notified on october 28, 1965 inviting objections before November 30, 1965. The date of hearing was december 15, 1965. No objections were received in time. The 1st Respondent filed his objections on January 10, 1966; but the same were rejected on the ground that they were not submitted within the notified date. The Regional Transport Authority, thereafter considered the merits of the petitioner's prayer and granted the variations in the route as well as in the timings. The 1st Respondent preferred an appeal, No. 554 of 1966 before the 2nd Respondent The petitioner contended that the appeal was not tenable. The Tribunal however rejected this contention, allowed the appeal and passed an order setting aside the Resolution passed by the regional Transport Authority on 1-6-1966. The petitioner challenges tie order of the 2nd respondent on the ground that there is a patent error in holding that the appeal was tenable under section 64 (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the 1st Respondent cannot be considered to be an aggrieved party within the meaning of Section 64 of the Act.

( 3 ) IN his counter-affidavit, the 1st Respondent admits the factual averments made in the petition. He also admits that he did not prefer a representation to the proposed deviation of the route. He however objects to the change in the schedule of timings for which no specific prayer had been made by the petitioner in his application. According to him, he had a right of appeal under section 64 (b) of the Act and that the grant of variation in the timings by the Regional Transport authority had adversely affected him in plying his own Stage Carriage. He has further averred that the deviation of the route does not necessitate any change of timings.

( 4 ) THE sole question that arises for our determination in this Writ Petition is whether an operator, who has failed to file his written objection within the notified time in response to the notice of application for variation of route published under Section 57 (3) of the Act, can file an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under Section 64 (b) against the order varying the condition as regards the route and that as regards the timings.

( 5 ) THE learned Advocates appearing for the parties have put forward two diametrically opposite contentions. According to the petitioner, the first respondent has no right of appeal under any of the Clauses of Section 64 of the Act and that he could have had a right of appeal under Clause (f)of Section 64 of the Act, had he filed his objections as required by Section 57 (3) of the Act; he had filed no objections within the time notified and he was therefore debarred from filing an appeal either under Clause (f) or any of the other Clauses of Section 64. Mr. Rangaswami, learned counsel appealing for the Respondent submitted that the 1st Respondent had a right of appeal under Clause (b) of that Section and his right to file an appeal is not dependent on his filing of objections in response to the notification. Both the learned counsel have cited authorities in support of their respective contentions.

( 6 ) SINCE there is no direct decision of this Court bearing on the point at issue, we think it advisable to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act before adverting to a discussio