The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of filing appeals within the prescribed time limit as per the Motor Vehicles Act and the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, and the lack of jurisdiction for appeals filed out of time.

The petitioner in this original petition challenge the validity of Ext. P10 judgment passed by the fourth respondent, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in M.V.A.A. No. 492/95 and also the subsequent order passed by the said Tribunal, Ext. P12 dated 27-6-95 passed on the application for review submitted by the petitioner herein seeking for a review of Ext. P1O judgment.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the O.P. are as follows: The petitioner filed an application for grant of an inter-State route. The third respondent also has filed another application for same inter-State route. Both these applications along with the third respondent's application were considered by the Karnataka State Transport Authority and granted the same as per Ext.P1 resolution subject to counter-signature by the Kerala State Transport Authority. The Kerala State Transport Authority rejected the request of the petitioner for a conter-signature as per Ext.P3 order dated 3-8-1993. Therefore, the petitioner has filed Ext.P4 appeal before te Appelate Tribunal and the order passed by the Kerala State Transport Authority was set aside by the Kerala State Transport Appellate Tribunal and remanded the matter again to the State Transport Authority Kerala, the first respondent herein.

3. As per Ext.P5 order dated 21-2-1994, the State Transport Authority, Kerala decided to seek advise of the State Transport Authority, Karnataka in respect of the availability of any remaining permit in the light of Ext.P2 inter-State agreement entered into between the States of Karnataka and Kerala dated 26-6-1976.

4. The matter was again considered by the State Transport Authority Kerala in the light of the opinion expressed by the State Transport Authority, Bangalore wherein they had held that the permit should be granted in accordance with the chronological order in which the grant was made.

5. The matter was again considered by the first respondent, the State Transport Authority, Kerala and allowed the application submitted by the petitioner for counter-signature of inter-State permit covered in Ext.P2 inter-State agreement as per Ext.P7 order dated 29-11-1994. By the said order, the first respondent refuse the request made by the third respondent, the Karnataka State Transport Corporation for counter-signature of the inter-State permit granted in their favour.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the third respondent, the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore represented by 1 its Managing Director had preferred Ext.P8 Memorandum of Appeal before the fourth respondent, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Kerala on 25-3-1995 evidenced by Ext.P8 Memorandum of Appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

7. In the said appeal, the petitioner herein was not originally made as a respondent. No revision also had been filed against the counter-signature granted in favour of the petitioner under Ext.P7 before the fourth respondent by the third respondent or any other person aggrieved under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

8. Thereafter the petitioner filed Ext.P9 affidavit dated 29-3-1995 before the fourth respondent in Ext.P8 appeal filed by the third respondent and prayed for impleading him- self as additional third respondent in that appeal, pending consideration before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. In the said affidavit, Ext.P9, the petitioner has specifically stated before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that the appeal preferred by the third respondent is barred by limitation. It is also specifically stated that Ext.P7 impugned order appears to have been received by the applicant for the permit, namely the Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore on whose behalf the appeal is preferred much before 25-2-1995. It is also averred in the affidavit that this must be in the last week of January, 1995. It is further averred in that affidavit filed by the petitioner that the appellant in th