Only permit-holders have the right to appeal against variations of their permit conditions under Section 64(b).

2. It was not argued before us on behalf of Raghunandan Prasad that the appeal under consideration was competent under S.64 (f) on the ground that, in view of sub-section (8) of S. 57, the applications of the petitioner and others for variation of the permits ought to be regarded as applications for new permits for the modified route. The only point pressed before us on his behalf was that the appeal is maintainable under S.64 (b) of the Act. On behalf of the petitioner on the other hand it was urged that S.64 (b) is not applicable in the circumstances of the case. S.64, omitting the unnecessary; parts thereof, reads thus: -
"Any person -
(a) aggrieved by the refusal of the State or a Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit, or by any condition attached to a permit granted to him, or
(b) aggrieved by the revocation or suspension of the permit or by any variation of the conditions thereof, or
(f), being a local authority or police authority or an association which, or a person' providing transport facilities who, having opposed the grant of a permit, is aggrieved by the grant thereof or by any condition attached thereto, or
....................................
(i) ............... may ............ appeal to the prescribed authority ..........................."

3. The true scope and meaning of Cl. (b) of S.64 have been discussed by several High Courts including this High Court.

4. In Bhan Singh v. Regional Transport Authority , Meerut, AIR 1967 All 336 a Single Judge of this High Court held that the words "the permit" and the definite article "the" before the word "permit" in Cl. (b) connote that reference is to the permit mentioned in Cl. (a) and, accordingly, "the permit" in Cl. (b) does not mean any permit but the permit granted to the person who is aggrieved: on this interpretation, it was held that, under Cl. (b), only the person the conditions of whose permit have been varied can file an appeal and not a third person. According to this decision, Raghunandan Prasad would have no right of appeal against the order varying the conditions of the permits of the petitioner and others.

5. A similar construction is placed upon Cl. (b) by the High Courts of Madras, Kerala, Patna and Andhra Pradesh.

6. In the Madras case, Kali Mudaliar v. Vedachala , AIR 1952 Mad 545 , the timetable of an operator was varied and another operator preferred an appeal, contending that such variation affected his business. A Single Judge, Subba Rao, J., held that the order was administrative and was not liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari but observed that the appeal was otherwise competent under S.64 (b). In the Letters Patent Appeal, a Division Bench was of the opinion that the time - table was not a condition of the permit and expressed considerable doubt as to the correctness of the conclusions of Subba Rao, J., so far as Clause (b) was concerned. Nevertheless, the learned Judges proceeded to state that even if the time - table could be said to be a condition attached to the permit, that clause did not confer a right on one person to appeal against an order varying the conditions of a permit granted to another person. They observed:
"The expression 'the permit' in that clause must obviously refer to the permit mentioned in Clause (a). That permit is a permit granted to any person by the Transport Authority. We think the proper construction of that clause is to confine its application to persons aggrieved by the revocation or suspension of the permits granted to them or again aggrieved by any variation of the conditions of such permits granted to them."

7.