The right of appeal under S.64 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a substantive right and should be expressly conferred by statute. The petitioner did not have a right of appeal under S.64(b) or S.64(f) against the order of variation of permit.

1. This is an application by Messrs. V. G. K. Bus Service (Private) Ltd., Coimbatore under Art.226 of the Constitution to quash the order dated 12-3-1958 passed by the first respondent herein and marked as Ext. P8 in these proceedings. Alternatively, it is also prayed that the order of the second respondent dated 5-6-1956 and marked Ext. P6 in these proceedings may also be quashed if this court is of the view that the order, Ext. P8 passed by the first respondent is otherwise correct.

2. The circumstances leading to the filing of this application as could be gathered from the statements contained in the affidavit of Sri M. Kaliappa Gounder filed in support of this application, are briefly as follows:

3. The applicant is a private limited company, having its Head Office at Coimbatore. The petitioner company runs 3 buses from Koduvayur to Coimbatore via Tattamangalam, Velanthavalam and Chavadi. Velanthavalam in Kerala State is the frontier station between the Kerala State and the Coimbatore District forming part of the Madras State. The third respondent Messrs. P.N. Krishna Iyer and Sons (Private) Ltd., Trichur, are also running 2 buses from Trichur to Velanthavalam via Tattamangalam. The route from Tattamangalam to Velanthavalam is common to the buses run by the applicant company and the third respondent. The third respondent, on 26th October 1954, filed an application to the then R. T. B., Trichur along with an application addressed to the R. T. A., Coimbatore. The said application requested the R.T.B. to make recommendation to the Coimbatore Authority to enable their buses running up to Velanthavalam to be extended up to Coimbatore. According to the petitioner, the R. T. B., without any regard to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, recommended the said application for variation of the route as prayed for. The said resolution of the R.T.B. is Ext. P1. In pursuance of this recommendation, the R. T. A., Coimbatore, by its proceedings" dated 12-8-1955 desired the third respondent, to produce from the R. T. A., Trichur a permit from Trichur to Coimbatore. The said resolution of the Coimbatore authority is Ext. P2.

4. Subsequently, the third respondent applied on 15-8-1955 to the second respondent for having the permits of their buses endorsed authorising them to run up to Coimbatore. On this application, the R. T. B., Trichur, without complying with the provisions of S.63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, passed an order on 5-9-1955 permitting the endorsement of the route applied for.

5. The petitioner challenged this order of the R. T. B. by filing an appeal before the then C. R. T. B., Trivandrum on 8-9-1955. The right of the present petitioner to file the said appeal before the C. R. T. B. was challenged in the then Travancore-Cochin High Court by the present third respondent'in proceedings under Art.226 namely, O.P. 279 of 1955. An order was passed in the said O. P. on 20-12-1955 directing the C. R. T.B., Trivandrum to dispose of the appeal filed by the present petitioner before 5-1-1956.

6. The C. R. T. B; took up the appeal filed by the present applicant, and by its order dated 4-1-1956, Ext. P3, set aside the order of the second respondent and directed the second respondent to dispose of the matter again in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, after giving an opportunity to this petitioner and other operators to place their objections, if any. The third respondent again applied for a variation of the existing permit for his 2 buses and the same was published in the Travancore-Cochin Gazette on 6-3-1956. Ext. P-4. The petitioner objected to the variation asked for by the third respondent on several grounds. The second respondent by its order dated 5-6-56, Ext. P6, rejected the objections of the applicant and granted the prayer of the 3rd respondent for variation of their permits. This order, Ext. P-5 according to the petitioner, is without jurisdiction and void.

7. Against this order of the second