The main legal point established in the judgment is that the fixation of timings at the time of the grant of permit is a condition of the permit and is appealable under S.64(f), thereby determining the jurisdiction of the first respondent to entertain a revision under S.64A.

1. This is an application under Art.226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the first respondent dated 2-5-1959 and marked as Ext. P. I in these proceedings. Though several points have been raised in this application this original petition can be disposed off on a very short point, namely, as to whether the first respondent has got jurisdiction to entertain a revision at the instance of the second respondent and to pass the order complained of.

2. The petitioner applied on 3-5-1956 for a stage carriage permit for the route, Thiruvalla-Periyar. As it was an inter-district route, the matter was referred, by the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam, to the C. R. T. B., Trivandrum. After the necessary formalities, the application was transmitted to the R.T.A., Kottayam for consideration and disposal.

3. The application is stated to have been heard on 20-2-59 in the presence of the petitioner, and also the other objectors and the R. T. A., sanctioned the grant of a permit for the route, in question in favour of the petitioner on 20-2-1959. The actual permit with the timings was granted on 25-4-1950.

4. It is also alleged that against this order of granting the permit in favour of the petitioner, an appeal was filed by one Haji T.M. Hassan Khan Rawther before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, and pending that appeal the said party applied for a stay of the operation of the grant of permit in favour of this applicant. But the said application for stay was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal.

5. In accordance with the direction of the R.T.A., Kottayam, the petitioner is stated to have produced the necessary records of his vehicle, K.L.K. 3287-1958 Model Fargo Bus - and the necessary permit was issued on 25-4-1959. Along with the said permit, the Authority also fixed tentative timings, for the running by the petitioner of his bus. But as a part of the route of about three miles from Thiruvalla to Idinjilam lay in the Alleppey District, the petitioner was also required to take the endorsement of the Alleppey Authority.

6. It is further stated by the petitioner that the R.T.A., Kottayam, at the instigation of some of the rival operators, prohibited the petitioner from operating the bus in the Alleppey District route, Thiruvalla, Idinjilam. But this order was challenged by the petitioner before this court in O.P. 607 of 1959 and it is stated that this court, by its order dated 5-5-1959, stayed the operation of the order of the R.T.A., Kottayam, regarding the restriction imposed.

7. It is further alleged that the second respondent herein, who was never in the picture at all when the question of the grant of permit in favour of the petitioner was being considered by the Authority, is stated to have filed a revision before the first respondent, the State Transport Authority, Trivandrum, against the fixing of the timings of the petitioner's bus by the R.T.A. The first respondent, after entertaining that revision, has also passed an order on 2-5-1959 namely, Ext. P.1, without notice to the petitioner. By virtue of that order, the State Transport Authority has stayed the operation of the permit issued by the regional Transport Authority, Kottayam in favour of the petitioner herein for the Thiruvalla-Periyar route till the R.T.A., Alleppey counter-signs the said permit. An attempt to have this order vacated by the petitioner proved of no avail.

8. According to the petitioner, the second respondent has no right to invoke the revisional powers of the first respondent and the first respondent has also no jurisdiction to entertain such a revision. In consequence, the order Ext. P.1, is wholly without jurisdiction. It is stated that the timings now issued in favour of the petitioner are purely tentative and they formed part and parcel of the permit itself. According to the petitioner, the order granting the permit in his favour is now pending in appeal by another party before the appellate Tribunal. An application for stay has b