Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the judgment of our brother Trivedi dated 4-11-1970 by which he dismissed writ petition No. 1037 of 1970 filed by the appellant Jeewan Nath Wahal.
(2.) ON 20-2-1964 the appellant made an application to the Regional Trans port Authority, Meerut Region, respondent No. 1, (hereinafter referred to as R. T. A.), for the grant of a regular stage carriage permit on Meerut-Dankaur route was not an existing one and the applications contained the prayer that it may be opened. The R. T. A. published the applications. Later on it refused to open the route and for that reason rejected the applications. The peti tioner filed an appeal under Sec. 64 (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the State Transport (Appellate) Tribunal, U. P. Lucknow, (here inafter referred to as the Tribubal). That appeal was allowed and a permit was Cant ed to the petitioner. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 filed a writ petition at Allaha bad which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. The special appeal filed by them before the Appellate Bench, however, succeeded on the ground that the matter relating to the opening of a route was not the subject matter of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The petitioner then made an ap plication under Article 136 of the Constitu tion of India to the Supreme Court but without success. Thereafter he filed a revision application before the State Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority). In the meantime the R. T. A. Lrrs. 3-0 J Jeewan Nath v. S.T.A. U. P., Lucknow (J. Sahai J.) opened the route and invited applications and fixed the strength at four. The Autho rity dismissed the revision application on the ground that the route having been open ed and fresh applications having been in vited, public interest would be served better by the course adopted by the R. T. A. rather than the suggestion made by the petitioner that he should be granted a per mit straightway by the Authority. Against that order of the Authority the writ petition giving rise to this special appeal has been filed in this Court.
(3.) THE main question that was canvassed before the learned Single Judge was whether the revising Authority had jurisdiction to grant the permit straight way, once_ the applications had already been published or that fresh applications had to be invited and permits granted only after considering the respective merits of the fresh application. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that there is- a water tight compartment between the revisional and the appellate jurisdiction in the scheme of the Act and that the grant of permits is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge laid emphasis on the fact that Section 64-A of the Act, which provides for revisions, imposes a restrictioa that only in cases in which no appeal lay a revision would be entertainable and held that inasmuch as under Section 64 the Ap pellate Authority can grant a permit, by im plication it may be held that the revising authority had no such jurisdiction. The same question has been canvassed before us. No other point has been raised. It came on the Statute Book by means of an amendment made in 1956.;