Gursaran Das Sahgal, J. - (1.)The petitioner is one of the 65 persons who hold a stage carriage permit on the route known as the Garhmukhteshwar -Hapur -Pilkhua -Ghaziabad -Delhi route or more shortly Garh -Delhi route described in Annex. 1 as the blue route (it will henceforward be described for the sake of brevity as the blue route). It is an interstate route Respondent No. 3 also held a stage carriage permit for a route from Ghaziabad to Faridnagar via Pilkhua shown in annexure 1 in lilac. A portion of this route is common with the blue route between Ghaziabad and Pilkhua.
On the 1st of February, 1962 respondent No. 8 made an application for the variation of his route. He proposed that he be allowed the route from Ghaziabad to Faridnagar via Pilkhua -Hapur -Bhojpur shown in red in annexure 1. He also prayed that his permit be varied so as to allow him to ply his stage carriage from Ghaziabad to Hapur via Pilkhua, i.e., the route shown in green in annexure 1. Due publication was made of his application in the U. P. Gazette on the 30th of June, 1962 and fifteen days time was allowed for filing representations as contemplated under Sec. 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter described as the Act). No representation was submitted by the petitioner during this period.

The application, however, came up for disposal before the Regional Transport Authority, respondent No. 1, at a meeting held between the 6th to the 8th of August, 1962. The petitioner filed at that stage a written objection purporting to be one under Sec. 47 of the Act objecting to the variations over the route. His objections, however, were rejected being time -barred and respondent No. 3 was ordered to be given a permit on the red route, i.e. the Ghaziabad -Hapur -Bhojpur -Faridnagar route in variation of the Gaziabad -Pilkhua -Faridnagar route on condition that he was not to pick up or set down any passenger between Hapur and Bhojpur which, as it appears, was a part of a notified route of Hapur to Modinagar and also on condition that this order would be subject to the approval of the Transport Commissioner and the State Transport Authority, U. P., respondent no.4. This order is contained in annexure 3 under which the objection of the petitioner is also rejected.

On the 18th of August, 1962 respondent No. 3 was even given a permit on the varied route and though it is asserted that he had given an undertaking to surrender the permit as directed by respondent No. 4, this fact U denied by respondent No. 2. In any case, respondent No. 4 took a decision in the matter refusing the permit for the use of the notified route from Hapur to Bhojpur. This order is said to have been passed on the 4th of September, 1962 No mention seems to have been made as to the alternative prayer in which variation was sought, namely, Ghaziabad to Hapur, the green route, and it may be taken that so far as the application related to that variation is stood rejected.

After the objection of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that it was time -barred, he filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, respondent No. 2 against that order which was registered as appeal no 312 of 1962. Respondent No. 3 also filed an appeal against the order dated the 17th of September, 1962 praying that the conditions attached to the permit of the variation of the route should be expunged (appeal No. 352 of 1962). While in the appeal filed by the petitioner he made respondent No. 3 a party to his appeal, respondent No. 3 in his appeal did not make the petitioner a party before respondent No. 2. As the petitioner was not sure as to whether an appeal lay at all, he filed an application in revision also under Sec. 64 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act before respondent No. 4 which has not been disposed of inasmuch as an appeal had already been filed against that order.

On the 28th of January, 1963 the petitioner made an application before respondent No. 2 to be made a party to the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 before it. This application, however, was rejected on the 28th of April, 1963. On the 18th of February, 1964 both the appeals, namely. Appeal No. 312 of 1962 and Appeal No. 352 of 1962, were disposed of and while the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected, namely. Appeal No 312 of 1962, in the appeal filed by respondent No. 3, namely, Appeal No. 352 of 1962 it was ordered that respondent No. 3 had a right to ply his stage carriage on the non -notified route subject to the usual conditions and terms of the permit. The copies of the orders are to be found in annexures 13 and 14. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed both on the merits and also on the ground that his objection was belated. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal pointed out in annexure 13 that it was impossible to treat the objection seriously considering the fact that Sri Fazal Ahmad (respondent No. 3) had the permit for years and was plying over a portion of the Delhi -Garh route over which he would continue to ply even now.

It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a number of writs as follows:

(a) That the orders of the respondent No. 1 contained in annexure 3 dated the 6th of August, 1962 be quashed by writ of certiorari.

(b) That the orders of the respondent No. 2 contained in annexure 14 dated 18th of February, 1964 granting a stage carriage permit to the respondent No. 3 on Ghaziabad -Pilkhua Hapur route be quashed by a writ of certiorari and the stage carriage of respondent No. 3 be prevented from plying over the said route under the orders of either respondent No. 1 or 2.

(c) If need be the orders of respondent No. 2 contained in annexure 10 dated the 25th of April, 1963 refusing to implead the petitioner as respondent in Appeal No. 352 of 1962 be quashed by a writ of certiorari.

(d) That the orders of respondent No. 1 rejecting the objections of the petitioner made on the 6th of August. 1962 be quashed by a writ of certiorari.

(e) That the orders of respondent No. 2 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner in Appeal No. 312 of 1962 be quashed by a writ of certiorari.

(2.)There is then a general prayer as to the grant of such other writs, orders and directions as will secure for the petitioner the cancellation of the permit of respondent No. 3 to ply his stage carriage over the route of the petitioner and from Ghaziabad to Hapur via Pilkhua. There is a prayer for costs also.
(3.)We have now to see how far, if at all, which or any relief can be granted to the petitioner in the circumstances.