Srivastava, J. -- 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge where under allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1, the order passed by the State Appellate Tribunal seeking setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting the stage carriage permit to the said respondent has been quashed, the objector/respondents in the writ petition have now come up in Letters Patent Appeal seeking redress praying for the setting aside of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel representing the contesting respondent, and have carefully perused the record.

3. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass. The respondent No. 1 had moved an application praying for the grant of a permit on 28.10.1996 for service of a stage carriage of two return trips daily on the route Ashoknagar to Kadwaya via Saraskhedi, lssagrah, Gahora and Manethi and for a single return trip daily between Ashoknagar to Isagarh via Saraskhedi.

4. The Regional Transport Authority, Gwalior vide its order dated 27.8.1997, granted a single permit for plying the stage carriage authorising two return trips daily between Ashoknagar and Kadwaya and a single return tip daily between Ashoknagar and lsagarh, as prayed for.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present appellants challenged the same in revision before the Madhya Pradesh State Appellate Tribunal. The State Appellate Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 3.10.1997, allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority granting permit to the respondent No.1.

6. Before the revising authority it had been urged by the present appellants that a single permit for routes having more than two terminals could not be granted. It had further been urged that the contesting respondent was required to pay Rs. 500/- for the grant of permit according to rule 145 of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, and as Prem Narain, the said respondent had paid only a sum of Rs. 500/- his application for the grant of permit to ply his stage carriage on a route with more than two terminals signifying two different routes could not be entertained. The appellants had also challenged the time schedule fixed by the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that it was wholly unjust.

7. The revising authority came to the conclusion that in his application for the grant of a permit, Prem Narain, the contesting respondent had in fact sought for permit to ply his stage carriage between the routes having more than two terminals and consequently, the permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority could not be held to be in accordance with the provisions contained in section 2(38) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, holding that a single permit for a route having more than two terminals could not be granted.

8. The objection in regard to the payment of an additional sum of Rs. 500/in order to comply with the requirements contained in rule 145 of the Rules referred to hereinabove, was however, rejected.

9. So far as the objection in regard to the time schedule was concerned, although, the State Appellate Tribunal had expressed the opinion that it appeared to be unjust but it did not go into merits of this controversy as the application for permit filed by the contesting respondent was found to be not entertain-able and the revision was allowed on that short ground.

10. The order passed by the revising authority was challenged by Prem Narain, the contesting respondent in the writ petition which has given rise to the present Letters Patent Appeal.

11. A learned single Judge of this Court vide the impugned order dated 11.3.1998, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the revising authority holding it to be against the provisions of the law.

12.