Provisions of new Act can not be applied at revisional stage.

These revision petitions are directed against the order passed in Appeal No.985 of 1986 on the file of State Transport Appellate Tribunal Madras, in which the Appellate Tribunal had allowed the appeal reversing the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Periyar District at Erode in R.No 68221/B1/85, dated 25. 1986.

2. Short facts are: The respondents had filed application for variation of the permit conditions in respect of the route Kangeyam to Tiruchengode. The respondents were having six singles between Kangeyam and Tiruchengode. They wanted variation by having four singles, but having the route extended upto Salem. The revision petitioners had objected to the same. They are objectors Nos.1, 3, 13and 11 respectively. After hearing the objectors, the Regional Transport Authority, Periyar District at Erode had dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed appeal in Appeal No.985 of 1986 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras. After hearing the appellants and the objectors/the Appellate Tribunal had allowed the appeal, granting variation, as sought for by the appellants, before him and had directed the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to fix suitable timings. Aggrieved by the judgment the above objectors have come forward these revision petitions.

3. Mr.3adagopan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the variation allowed by the Appellate Tribunal was for a distance more then 24 kms. and it is not in accordance with provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules framed thereunder. Secondly, he would submit that the extended distance is disproportionate to the distance covered by the existing route and it would practically amount to a distinctively difference and new route and that cannot be granted under the guise of variation of the present route. The third submission is that the appellate tribunal does not have the power and jurisdiction to allow the appeal without countersignature and concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority, Salem. In this regard he would submit that the entire variation by way of extension of the existing route, lies within Salem District, inasmuch as the sector Tiruchengode to Salem is within the said District.

4. I have heard Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents, on the above aspects.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and the learned Advocate General. I shall first take up the first submission made by Mr.Sadagopan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners. For considering this submission, the relevant section in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (which I shall hereinafter referred to as the "Act") which was in force at the time when the proceedings before the Regional Transport Authority and the appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal were heard. Sec.48(3)(xxi) reads as follows:

"Sec.48(3) The Regional Transport Authority if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a service of stage carriages of a specified description or for one or more particular stage carriages, and may, subject to any rules that may be under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely:

(xxi) That the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less then one month;

.(a) Vary the conditions of the permit;

.(b) attach to the permit further conditions; Provided that the conditions specified in pursuance of clause (1) shall not be varied so as to alter the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 kilometres, and any variation within such limits shall be made only after the Regional Transport Authority, is satisfied that such variation will serve the public convenience and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or any part thereof."