1. The petitioner in all these Writ Petitions is the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). These writ petitions are directed against several orders of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), allowing the appeals filed by Respondent - 1 in each of these Writ Petitions against the orders of the Mysore State Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as M.S.T.A.) renewing the permits to ply the stage carriages concerned, under S.58 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939, for a period of 3 years only, even though the first respondent in each of these petitions had applied for renewal of such permits for a period of 5 years.

2. The ground on which the Corporation has filed these Writ Petitions is that no appeal was maintainable against the orders of M.S.T.A. renewing a permit, even though the period specified in each case was 3 years as against the period of 5 years prayed for by respondent - 1 in each case, in view of the language of S.64(e) of Motor Vehicles Act. The relevant part of S.64 reads as follows: -
"64. Any person............
(a) xxxx xxxx xxxx 
(b) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(c) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(d)  xxxx xxxx xxxx
(e) aggrieved by the refusal of renewal of a permit or
(f) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(g)  xxxx xxxx xxxx
(h)  xxxx xxxx xxxx
(i)  xxxx xxxx xxxx
may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the prescribed authority who shall give such person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard."
The prescribed Appellate Authority to hear appeals filed under S.64 against the order of M.S.T.A. is the Tribunal. It may be mentioned here that the M.S.T.A. is empowered to exercise the power of a regional transport authority in respect of grant or renewal of stage carriage permits when the routes in question are inter - State routes. In all these cases, we are concerned with inter - State routes. In W.P. No.2240/70, however, the order renewing the permit was granted by the Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as the R.T.A.) since it had the jurisdiction to grant such renewal at the relevant point of time even though the route in question was an inter - State route. Against the order of renewal granted by the R.T.A. the first respondent preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which dismissed it. Against that appellate order the first respondent filed an appeal under S.64(2) of the Act before the Tribunal in respect of the identical question, namely the period for which the renewal had been granted. The question for consideration in W.P.2240/70 is also therefore one arising under S.64 of the Act which is extracted above. Since all these petitions have given rise to common questions of. law, we have heard all of them together and are disposing of them by this common order. Sri C.S. Shanthamallappa has taken notice on behalf of Sri Barikulla Khan who is impleaded as respondent in W.Ps.2102 and 4872 of 1970.

3. Sri Appa Rao, learned counsel for the Corporation, the petitioner herein, argued that on a true construction of clause (e) of S.64 of the Act. it would not be possible to hold that an appeal lay to the prescribed appellate authority against an order granting a renewal of a permit even though a modification had been made by the authority granting such renewal with regard to the period during which the said permit had to be in force after such renewal. A reading of S.64 of Motor Vehicles Act would show that the right to prefer an appeal against an order or resolution of a R.T.A. is not granted to the parties in an unqualified way. In every one of the clauses (a) to (h) the right of appeal of a party is hedged in by limitations and unless a party is able to show that his case falls specifically under any one of them, he would not be entitled to maintain an appeal against an order of the R.T.A. or the M.S.T.A. In this case we are concerned with the meaning of the expression 'aggrieved by the refus