JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - Feeling aggrieved on the opening of a fresh route connecting Meerut with Dankaur and the grant of regular stage carriage permits for that route to respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, the petitioners, who are rival operations on the Meerut-Bulandshahr route, have come to this Court and pray that the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow be quashed.

Many persons including respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 made applications for the grant of stage carriage permits on Meerut Dankaur route. They were published in the State Gazette in 1963 and 1965. The petitioners filed objections that the existing services were adequate and that there was no need to open a direct service. If a new direct service was permitted, the petitioners would' suffer severely, because a substantial portion of the route would overlap with that of the petitioners. This matter was considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut at its meeting held on July 26 to 28, 1965. Item No. 3 of the agenda was :

"To pronounce decision regarding recognition and classification of Meerut to Dankaur via Hapur Gulaothi Sikandrabad route and grant of permits thereon. The applicants and objectors as shown in the appendix 'N' of item No. 35 of last R.T.A. meeting held on May 6 to 8, 1965 had been heard.

The Regional Transport Authority resolved :

".... After giving due consideration to the stand taken by the persons for or against the grant of permits on Meerut-Dankaur route, we are not convinced that there is any justification and need to open this route for direct bus service. We do not think that there is enough direct traffic from Dankaur to Meerut. As such it is resolved that the route Meerut to Dankaur need not be opened for direct services. The applications received for permit on this route as contained in appendix 'N' to item No. 35 of the last R.T.A. meeting held on May 6 to 8, 1965 are rejected."

Aggrieved, respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 along with other nine persons filed appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow. The Tribunal by its impugned order passed on 1-9-1967 reversed the finding of the authority below him and ordered the grant of permits to respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.

The Tribunal held that of the Twelve appeals, six were barred by time. The other six including those of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were within time. The latter finding is challenged at the hearing of the present petition. Rule 72 of the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes 30 days limitation for filing appeals. The Regional Transport Authority had issued the order refusing permits on 2-111965. The period of limitation, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, commences from the date of the service of the order. The petitioners have not stated the date of service of the Authority's order on respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Learned counsel for the respondents informed me that the respondents 3 to 5 filed the appeals early in December, 1965. In the absence of the date of the receipt of the order, it cannot be held that the appeals were barred by time. Further, the point that the respondents' appeals were time barred and that the finding of the Tribunal on that point was wrong has not been taken in the writ petition. Since it involves determination of a material question of fact, the petitioners arc not entitled to raise such a point for the first time at the hearing. The Tribunal had held that the limitation would commence from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order because a certified copy of the order is required to filed along with the memorandum of appeal. The reasoning of the Tribunal appeals to me, but I need not express any final opinion on the point, because really the point does not arise.

The principal question canvassed at the hearing, however, was that the order of the Regional Transport Authority was not appealable. Learned counsel urged that the Regional Transport Authority had decided that there