Hegde, J.—In this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India (it ought to be only under Article 227, the petitioner challenges the legality of the order passed by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Appeal No. 367 of 1963(M.V.) on its file on the ground that the same is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record. The tribunal in that case confirmed the order of the S. T. A. T. which in its turn had confirmed the order of the R. T. A., Tumkur.

(2) Sri Puttaswamy the learned counsel for the petitioner formulated before us three questions of law in support of the pleas put forward in this petition. They are (i) the decision of the tribunal that the petitioner had not made any written representation under section 57(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939(to be hereinafter referred to as 'Act') is patently erroneous, (ii) the first respondent the only contesting respondent, is estopped from contending that the petitioner had not made any written representation as required by section 57(4) of the Act and (iii) on a plain reading of Section 64(1)(f) of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal against the order of the R. T. A. Even if it is held that he had not filed any written representation as contemplated by Section 57(4) of the Act.

(3) The brief facts of the case are as follows :

On 26-8-1960 the first respondent submitted an application to the R. T. A,. Tumkur for the grant of a stage carriage permit for the route Tumkur to Sajjehosahalli via Chikkathotalikere cross. Ramagondanahalli, A. E. Colony, Malehalli, Brahmasandra Kesthur, Thovinakere, Muramkote, Solahalli, Moratagere, Madhugiri and Badavanahalli. This application was duly published under S. 57(3) of the Act, in the Official Gazette. The petitioner's case is that he filed a written representation objecting not only to the grant prayed for by the first respondent but also to the timings mentioned in his application. But according to the contesting respondent, the petitioner had not filed any written representation whatsoever.

(4) The case of the petitioner is that when the application of the first respondent was taken up for consideration by the R.T.A. on 10/11-4-1962. Though the written representation made by him was not available in the office of the R.T.A., the first respondent conceded that he had made the representation in question and therefore, the R.T.A. Proceeded on the basis that he was one of the persons who was entitled to object to the grant. This submission is disputed on behalf of the respondent. In this regard, the R.T.A. had observed as follows:

"Sri Mallikarjuniah filed power for Sri Revanna (the petitioner) and contended though he filed his objections in time his objection has not been considered. He also produced the postal certificate for having sent the objection to the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant did not oppose the plea of Revanna. Hence Revanna's counsel Mallikarjuniah was also heard."

From these observations, the petitioner seeks to contend that admittedly the petitioner had sent his written representation. Both the S.T.A.T. and the Tribunal came to the conclusion after examining the material on record, that the petitioner has failed to submit any written representations as required by S. 57(4). Prima facie this is a finding of fact which is not open to review by this Court. But this finding is challenged by Sri Puttaswamy on two grounds. He firstly contended that the Tribunals below overlooked the admission made by the learned counsel for the first respondent and his second ground was that in reaching the conclusion the S.T.A.T. and the Tribunal did not bear in mind the presumption available under S. 114 of the Evidence Act. We do not think that from the observations made by the R.T.A. (Quoted above), it is possible to come to the conclusion that any positive admission was made by the counsel for the first respondent.