T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition comes up on conversion of the original Writ Petition No. 1044 of 1971. The respondent applied for a variation of his route from Vellore to Pallikonda, so as to extend the same from Pallikonda to Gudiyatham. The Regional Transport Authority, who dealt with this application, summarily dismissed the same on the ground that the respondent was not entitiled to such an extension as the length of the sector covered after the variation was not permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondent took up the matter in appeal, and before the appellate authority, it appears to me, the parties had made representations not only as regards the maintainability of the application, but also on the merits. This I say because the appellate authority went into the matter not only on the question whether the extension was plausible under the Act, but also on the ground whether the extension was publicly needed. Ultimately the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the respondent's claim for extension was justified. It is as against this, the present civil revision petition has been filed.
2. The petitioner, who was one of the objectors to the extension claims that there was not enough material before the appellate authority for him to undertake the investigation about the public need and ultimately to sanction the variation. His second contention is that the material on record cannot be said to be sufficient for the purpose of appreciating whether the extension or variation could be granted. In any event, the appellate authority ought to have remitted the subject-matter to the Regional Transport Authority for a fuller appraisal of merits and circumstances and for an ultimate decision whether the extension should be granted.
3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied very strongly on the observations made by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1436 of 1971. It is no doubt true that in matters where the record does not pose enough or sufficient material which could prompt the appellate authority which has co-extensive jurisdiction along with the original authority to deal with matters like the one with which we are concerned, the normal function of an appellate authority is to send back the matter to the original authority for a fuller appraisal of the material and for a proper decision thereafter. But, if the appellate authority is confronted with the position that it could act and weigh the material before it for purposes of finding out whether an extension or variation is proper or not, then it could undertake such an investigation if it is satisfied that the material before it is adequate. Unless there is perversity in the application of this salient rule, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, ought not to interfere with such an assessment of material by the appellate authority, made in the peculiar circumstances under which it was called upon to decide for itself about the necessity or otherwise of the variation or extension.
4. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the respondent in his application has made the position clear and has made out a case, according to him, which justifies an extension. The petitioner, who was vitally interested as an operator in the sector, opposed the same. But, the appellate authority finds that though there were many representations to the notification issued consequent upon the application for extension made by the respondent, yet they did not raise any objection to such an extension but only wanted suitable timings to be fixed. The appellate authority also finds that the petitioner argued at length over the need for the extension and after hearing the parties and after considering the available material, it came to the conclusion that the existence of the need was established. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no material at all for the appellate authority to come to the conclusion as it did in the instant case. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that some more material such as occupancy ratio and the necessity as such for the extension might have been gathered by the appellate authority from the Regional Transport Authority, or the subject-matter could have been remitted to the original authority for it to appreciate the subject in the light as above. The Regional Transport Authority indeed had an opportunity to place such material before the appellate authority. In paragraph 10 of the appeal grounds, the appellant-respondent placed some material in support of his claim for extension. The Regional Transport Authority remarks that no material evidence has been produced in support of the need. But, even then, he has not taken care to state that there was no public need for such an extension or indeed it was unnecessary. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellate authority did not have sufficient material for him to decide the matter for himself without the assistance of the Regional Transport Authority. In any event, the order of the appellate authority is admittedly based on material placed before him and on which lengthy arguments were addressed by the parties. In those circumstances, it cannot be an order passed by the appellate authority without jurisdiction. It is only in cases where the challenged order is without jurisdiction or one passed in excess of Jurisdiction or irregular exercise of jurisdiction or an order which has resulted in material irregularity, that this Court normally interferes under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. I am unable therefore, to accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order suffers from want of jurisdiction.
5. As regards the other contention that the extended route would cover mileage beyond the prescribed distance, that has not been pressed before me as the matter is covered by a decision of this Court.
6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.