T. Kochu Thommen, J.
1. The complaint of the petitioner is that his M. V. Act Appeal No. 32 of 1977 was dismissed by the 1st respondent, the State Transport Appellate Tri-bunal, Ernakulam. The appellant in M. V. Act Appeal No. 15 of 1977 challenged the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, granting a pucka permit to the 4th respondent. His appeal was allowed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the pucka permit was cancelled. The petitioner in this Original Petition had also raised objections before the Regional Transport Authority against the grant of the said permit. It was against the order of the R T A granting the permit to the 4th respondent that the present petitioner filed his Appeal No. 32 of 1977 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. In dismissing his appeal the S.T.A.T. found that since the permit granted by the R.T.A. in favour of the 4th respondent had already been set aside in Appeal No. 15 of 1977, Appeal No. 32 of 1977 which challenged the grant of the same permit had become in-fructuous. The S.T.A.T. also found that the present petitioner had not submitted any written objection to Ext. R1 notification issued under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and consequently he had no locus standi before either the R.T.A or the S.T.A.T.
2. Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Go-palakrishnan, contended before me that the petitioner was entitled to raise the objection before the R.T.A., although he did not submit any written representation pursuant to Ext. R1 notification, and his appeal before the S.T.A.T. was main-tainasble. According to him, the petitioner was aggrieved by the grant of a pucka permit as he was himself operating a vehicle under a temporary permit in the very same route, and he had therefore a right to raise objections before the R.T.A. It is contended that his appeal before the S.T.A.T. was maintainable.
3. Counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to a decision of the Mysore High Court in N R. Revanna v. T. V. Mallappa (AIR 1965 Mys 258) holding that a person who had not made a written representation against a notification issued under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act was not entitled to raise any objection before the authorities. It is therefore contended that the present petitioner has no locus standi.
4. Petitioner's counsel relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in B. Pra-bhakara Rao v. Desari Panakala Rao, (AIR 1976 SC 1803) where the Court upholding the vires of Rule 15 of the Andhra Pradesh State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1971, held:
'.....Rule 15 does not entitle parties tothe appeal or application to produce additional evidence but clothes the tribunals with discretionary power to allow such evidence.'
5. It is true that the authority may take note of an objection made otherwise than under Section 57; but no person has a right to raise any objection except as provided by that section. That being the position, the contention of the petitioner that he was entitled to raise objections before the R.T.A., although he did not submit his written representation pursuant to Ext. R 1 notification, is not supported by the observation of the Supreme Court: The decision of the Mysore High Court relied on by the respondents is explicit on this question. It will suffice if I read the relevant head-note in N. R. Revanna v. T. V. Mallappa (AIR 1965 Mys 258) : (At page 260).
'The opposition to the grant, contemplated by Section 64(1)(f) is an opposition in accordance with law and not all oppositions however made. A person who hasnot made a written representation as contemplated by Section 57(4) of the Act is not entitled to a hearing before the R.T.A. and if he is given a hearing by the R.T.A either by mistake or by ignorance of law, he cannot be considered as a person who has opposed the grant and therefore he is not entitled to appeal under Section 64(1)(f) against the order granting permit.'
In the circumstances, I see no merits in the Original Petition. The petitioner who had not submitted any written representation pursuant to a notification issued under Section 57(3) is not a person who can be regarded as having been sufficiently aggrieved to challenge the decision of the 1st respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Original Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Issue carbon copy of this judgment to the parties at their cost and to the Government Pleader free of costs.