Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in O. P. No. 498 of 1958, Messrs. V.G.K. Bus Service (Private) Limited is the appellant before as. The company is operating buses from Coduvayur to Coimbatore via Thattamangalam and Velanthavalam. 2. Velanthavalam is on the frontier between the Kerala State and the Coimbatore District of the Madras State. The distance between Thattamangalam and Velanthavalam is 17 miles and the distance between Valanthavalam and Coimbatore is 16 miles. 3. The third respondent Messrs. P. N. Krishna Iyer & Sons (Private) Limited was a bus operator from Trichur to Velanthavalam via Thattamangalam. That company applied for an extension of its route from Velanthavalam to Coimbatore The R. T. B. Trichur, over-ruled the objections of the appellant and allowed the variation. 4. The appellant then appealed under S.64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. That appeal was heard on 29-11-1957 by the first respondent and dismissed on 12-3-1958 on the preliminary ground that it was not maintainable. 5. The appellant then invoked Art.228 of the Constitution and challenged the correctness of the decision by O.P. No. 498 of 1958. Vaidialingam, J. before whom the petition came up for hearing, dismissed the petition with costs on 30-1-1959. 6. The only question for determination is whether an appeal is competent in the circumstances of this case. The contention of the appellant is that it is competent under S. 64(b) and [f] of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 S.64(a), (b) and (f) read as follows: "Any person [a] aggrieved by the refusal of the State or a Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit, or by any condition attached to a permit granted to him, or [b] aggrieved by the revocation or suspension of the permit or by any variation of the conditions thereof, or [f] being a local authority or police authority or an association which, or a person providing transport facilities who, having opposed the grant of a permit, is aggrieved by the grant thereof or by any condition attached thereto, may within the prescribed lime and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the prescribed authority who shall give such person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard." 7. There can be no doubt that the appellant is a person affected by the variation. There can be no doubt that the appellant is a person affected by the variation. As a result of it the competition to be faced from the third respondent has been extended from a distance of 17 miles to a distance of 33 miles. The variation, however, is not of any permit issued to the appellant and it is hence not possible to say that he has a right of appeal under S.64 (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In AIR. 1952 Madras 545 Rajamannar, C.J. and Venkatarama Iyer J., said: "The expression ‘the permit' in that clause must obviously refer to the permit mentioned in clause [a]. That permit is a permit granted to any person by the Transport Authority. We think the proper construction of that clause is to confine its application to persons aggrieved by the revocation or suspension of the permits granted to them or again aggrieved by any variation of the conditions of such permits granted to them. That clause does not confer a right on one person to appeal against an order varying the conditions of a permit granted to another person." 8. S.64 (f) deals with the grant of permits and prima facie not with any variation thereof. Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to S.57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which says: "An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or in the case of a stage carriage permit, by increasing the number of services above the specified maximum, or in the case of a contract carriage permit or a public carrier's permit by increasing the number of vehicles covered by the permit, shall be treated as an application for grant of a new permit: Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of a stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route or in any area to increase the frequency of the service so provided, without any increase in the number of vehicles." and contended that the variation of a permit amounts in scope and effect to the grant of a new permit AIR. 1952 Madras 545 dealt with a similar contention as follows: "It is true that R.203 provides that if there is an application for the variation of the permit which would authorise transport facilities materially different from those attached to the original permit, the procedure to be followed is the same as that prescribed for considering applications for permit; but we do not think that because this procedure applies, the person opposing an application for variation could be deemed to be a person opposing the grant of a permit within S.64(f)." The rule mentioned in the extract corresponds to R.220 of the Travancore-Cochin Motor Vehicles Rules, 1952. 9. We are in respectful agreement with the view of the Madras High Court as regards the scope and effect of the provisions in both clause (b) and (f) of S.64. It follows that the decision in O.P. No. 498 of 1958 is correct and that the appeal has to be dismissed. 10. In AIR. 1961 Madhya Pradesh 81 the court surveyed the authorities on the subject and dealt with S.64(b) and (f) as follows: "One view is that only the permit-holder, who is aggrieved by the variation of the condition of his permit can appeal under clause [b] and other persons providing transport facilities are disentitled to appeal thereunder: AIR. 1952 Madras 545 and AIR. 1960 Kerala 18. This view finds support in the observations of the Supreme Court in AIR. 1959 SC 851. The other view is that even third persons providing transport facilities are persons aggrieved by variation of conditions by including a new route and they are entitled to appeal under clause (b). This view is supported by AIR. 1957 Rajasthan 312 (F. B.) and AIR. 1959 Rajasthan 41. We think the first view is correct because the right of appeal by persons providing transport facilities and aggrieved by a variation having been specifically provided in clause, (f) there was no point in giving to them a right of appeal under another clause. Considered in other way, if clause (b) be regarded as conferring an unfettered right of appeal to persons providing transport facilities, the provision in clause (f) would be, so far as those persons are concerned, otiose. Considered in other way, if clause (b) be regarded as conferring an unfettered right of appeal to persons providing transport facilities, the provision in clause (f) would be, so far as those persons are concerned, otiose. We are, therefore, of opinion that other persons providing transport facilities over a route, which is included by variation under sub-section (8) of S.57 of the Act in another permit, can appeal only under clause (f)." We are in agreement with this decision only to the extent it relates to the ambit of S.64 (b). 11. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.