No power to vary route.

S. RAMACHANDRA IYER, C.J.:- This is an appeal under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Srinivasan, J. declining to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which granted a variation of the two stage carriage permits held by the first respondent. The questions that fall for determination in this appeal as :

1. Whether pending a revision petition under S. 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order of the Regional Transport authority, refusing to grant variation if the applicant dies, his or her legal representatives can pursue the revision petition; and (ii) whether it will be open to the Transport Authorities to grant variation of a permit so as to enable the operator to cut the route prescribed in the original permit, and to proceed to a different destination abandoning the one fixed under the permit. Srinivasan, J. has answered both the questions in the affirmative.

2. The facts which have led up to this appeal are these : One Lakshmi, whose interests are now represented by the first respondent held two permits to ply stage carriages from Madras to Madras, a distance of about 52 miles. She applied to the Regional Transport Authority for a variation of the permits so as to enable her to take the buses from Madras to Pudupatnam which lies some miles south of Madras. A major portion of the route (about 44 miles) leading upto that place from Madras happens to be the road which connects Madras and Sadras; in that road and about 54 miles from Madras, the road to Pudupatnam takes off towards the south and leads to the destination. If the variation asked for were to be granted Lakshmis buses instead of going to Sadras would go to a different place altogether, namely, Pudupatnam, the consequence of which will be that none of the places beyond the 44th mile of the Madras-Sadras route including the terminus Sadras will be served by the two buses for which the original permits had been granted by the Regional Transport authority.

By its order, dated 21-9-1958, the Regional Transport authority rejected the application for variation as it involved curtailment of about 7 miles on the existing route covered by the original permits. Lakshmi feeling aggrieved by the order of the Transport authority filed a revision to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Pending the revision petition, she died, and the first respondent who has been appointed as the property guardian of her minor legal representatives was permitted to continue the proceedings initiated under S. 64 A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal being satisfied that it would be in the public interests to grant the variation, set aside the order of the Regional Transport authority and granted the variation sought. Two of the rival operators who had opposed the application for variation of the permits, filed petitions to this court, under Art. 226 of the Constitution questioning the validity of the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Srinivasan, J. found no error in the order of the Tribunal permitting the second respondent to continue the revision petition filed by Lakshmi and he also held that it would be open to the Transport Authorities in the interests of the public and with a view to avoiding uneconomic competition, to allow variation of the permits even though the existing route would be curtailed. As, in the instant case, the Appellate Tribunal had found that it was in the interests of the public to grant the variation, the learned judge held that this court would not be justified in, interfering with the order of the tribunal under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. We are in agreement with the learned Judge on the first question. The learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant contended that as the variation sought by Lakshmi had been refused by the Regional Transport authority the right she had when she filed the revision petition to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ag