Ashok Bhushan, J. :

” A three Judge Bench has made the reference by order dated 16.10.2014 doubting correctness of an earlier Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in Binu Chacko v. R.T.A., Pathanamthitta (2006(2) KLT 172) : (AIR 2006 Ker 177). In the reference order, the Full Bench has observed that in Binu Chacko” s case (supra), the Full Bench has dilated regarding the scope of the phrase ' person aggrieved” . The matter was placed before the Full Bench by reference order dated 30.3.2011 by a Division Bench. The learned Division Bench, after noticing the ratio of the Full Bench judgment in Binu Chacko” s case (supra) and a Division Bench judgment in Girija Devi v. K. T. Mathew (1991(1) KLT 353), which was relied on in Binu Chakco” s case (supra), in paragraphs 6 to 10, has opined as follows:

' 6. From time to time question arose whether the existing operators have any legal right to raise such objections. The question which actually fell for consideration of the Full Bench in Binu Chacho v. R.T.A., Pathanamthitta [2006(2) KLT 172] : (AIR 2006 Ker 177) was whether an oder granting permit is a revisable order under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at the i