The alteration of timings assigned to a stage carriage operator constitutes a variation of a condition of the permit, making the appeal to the State Transport Authority competent.

( 1 ) THE petitioner obtained a permit to operate his stage carriage between Kunigal and Tumkur. The District Magistrate, Tumkur, who was then exercising the powers of a Regional Transport authority under the Motor Vehicles Act permitted him to leave Kunigal at 3,50 P. M. This was done by an order made by him on October 16, 1950. Respondent 4, who was another operator was, in respect of his service, permitted to leave Kunigal at 3. 45. P. M.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the Petitioner by its resolution which it passed on February 25, 1954, the regional Transport Authority directed the petitioner to leave Kunigal at 3. 45 P. M. instant of 3. 30 p. M. although, according to the timings originally assigned he had to leave Kunigal only at 3. 45 p. M. On behalf of respondent 4, Mr. Venkatanarasimhachar does not admit that by the resolution passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Tumkur, on February 25, 1954, the timings originally assigned to the petitioner were altered. His contention is that by that resolution, the regional Transport Authority merely declined to make a carnation in the timings originally assigned to the petitioner. To this aspect, I will advert at the appropriate stage.

( 3 ) HOWEVER, from the decision of the Regional Transport Authority directing the petitioner to leave Kunigal at 3. 45 P. M. the petitioner appealed to the State Transport Authority. The State transport Authority allowed the appeal and permitted the petitioner to leave Kunigal at 3. 30 P. M. Respondent 4 appealed from the decision of the State Transport Authority to the State government who was then exercising power under section 64 (2) of Act. That appeal was dismissed.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT 4 thereafter presented Writ Petition 188 of 1956 to this Court. By an order made in that Writ Petition on August 7, 1958, the orders of the State Transport Authority and the State government were set aside and the matter was remanded to the State Transport Authority for a fresh disposal of the appeal prosealed to it by the petitioner. Respondent 4 was, by that order, permitted to raise before the State Transport Authority the contention that the appeal proffered by the petitioner to it was an incompetent appeal.

( 5 ) WHEN the matter went back to the State Transport Authority in that way, respondent 4 did raise that contention, and the contention succeeded. The State Transport Authority dismissed the appeal presented by the petitioner on the ground that appeal did not lie under the provisions of secretary. 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner then presented a second appeal to the mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and that a[peal met with no success.

( 6 ) IN this application presented by the petitioner the view taken by the State Transport Authority and the Revenue Appellate Tribunal, that the petitioner's appeal was not maintainable, is assailed on the ground that it rests onan incorrect construction of the provisions of secretary. 64 (1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act as it is in force in that area which was originally the former State of mysore and as it stood before the Motor Vehicles Act was amended by Act 100 of 1958.

( 7 ) THE Statutory provision to be interpreted in this case is Section 64 (1) (b) of the Motor vechiles Act as it stood before such amendment, and that part of the section reads:" any person - (a) aggrieved by the refusal of the State or a Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit granted to him, or (b) aggrieved by the revocation or suspension of the permit or by any variation of the conditions thereof. . . . . may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the prescribed authority who shall give such person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard. "

( 8 ) THE case presented on behalf of the petitioner was that there was a variation by the Regional transport Authority of a condition of his permit and that such variation was one against which an appeal was clearly provided