( 1 ) THE petitioner, who holds a stage carriage permit on Bhopal-Nazirabad route, by this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, calls into question the orders of Transport Authorities by which the stage carriage permit of the respondent No. 3, which was originally for Bhopal-Barasia, has been extended upto Nazirabad.

( 2 ) BHOPAL-BARASIA is a route of 26 miles and Bhopal-Nazirabad via Barasia is a route of 45 miles. The respondent No. 3 applied sometime in 1966 to the Regional transport Authority, Bhopal for extension of his Bhopal-Barasia permit upto nasirabad. On publication of the application, the petitioner objected on the ground that the grant of extension will virtually amount to granting a new permit and that it will violate the ceiling order limiting the number of stage carriage permits on bhopal-Nazirabad route. The Regional Transport Authority by its order passed on 16th October, 1967, allowed the extension. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Authority which was dismissed on 22nd february, 1968. The extension of the permit upto Nazirabad has been ordered under Section 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act as a variation of the condition of the original permit for Bhopal-Barasia. It is not disputed that there is a ceiling order in force which limits the number of stage carriage permits on Bhopal-Nazirabad route and if the extension allowed to the respondent No. 3 was in reality grant of a new permit the limit was violated.

( 3 ) THE only point urged by Shri V. S. Dabir, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the extension of Bhopal-Barasia permit of respondent No. 3 upto Nazirabad in effect amounted to grant of a new permit and was not permissible under Section 57 (8) of the Act.

( 4 ) THE point so raised relates to the scope of Section 57 (8) which reads as follows:

"an application to vary the conditions of any permit other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or in the case of a stage carriage permit, by increasing the number of services above the specified maximum, or in the case of a contract carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, by increasing the number of vehicles covered by the permit, shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. "

( 5 ) THIS sub-section has been construed by this Court in a number of cases. In ugratara Motor Service v. Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, Misc. Petn. No. 266 of 1963, D/- 14-10-1963 (Madh Pra) it was observed as follows:

"it (Regional Transport Authority) also failed to notice that the permanent permit held by the respondent No. 3 was for a route of 32 miles and the extension desired by him was for another 30 miles. In granting an extension for these 30 miles, the Regional Transport authority virtually granted a permit to the non-applicant No. 3 for a new route altogether, practically destroying the identity of the original route. "

The above passage was quoted and applied in Ramgopal Satyanarayan v. Regional transport Authority Misc. Petn. No. 46 of 1967 D/- 26-4-1967 (Madh Pra ). Ramgopal Satyanarayan's case, Misc. Petn. No. 46 of 1967 D/- 26-4-1967 (Madh pra) clearly laid down that the variation of the condition as to route contemplated by the sub-section is limited to "a little change" of the original route. The Court pointed out: "to us it appears that under Clause (8) of Section 57 an application formodification, that is, introducing a little change either by the inclusion of a new route or in other manner, is envisaged, and not an application for making a change which would destroy the identity of the permit and would make it a permit for a new route altogether. This is what was held by this Court in Ugratara Motor Service's case. Misc. Petn. No. 266 of 1963, D/- 14-10-1963 (Madh Pra) (supra ). "

Ramgopal Satyanarayan's case, Misc. Petn. No. 46 of 1967, D/- 26-4-1967 (Madh pra) was in its turn followed in Rasul Motor Transport Co. v. Regi