JUDGMENT : M.A. ANSARI, J. 1. Messrs P.S.N. Motors (Private) Ltd. held permit in respect of stage carriage KLR. 1128 that had permitted the bus to run the distance of about 56 miles between Palai & Alwaye. The permit holder then applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, to extend the route from Alwaye to Fort-Cochin and the extension prayed involved the distance of about 20 miles. That application was published in the Gazette and the writ petitioner along with some others made representations against the extension. The Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, allowed the permit on May 5, 1959. The order is short one and reads as follows:- “..................The extension applied for is allowed for the special convenience of the Hill produce trade.” The writ petitioner feeling aggrieved filed petition under S. 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. But that petition has been rejected on the ground of the revising authority having seen no reason to interfere with the order of the Regional Transport Authority. There after the writ petition was filed challenging the legality of the aforesaid orders, and the following two grounds have been taken before us for vacating them:- (1) In giving the extension for the convenience of the Hill produce trade the Regional Transport Authority had disregarded the provisions of S. 47 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act whereunder the permit can be granted only in the interests of the public generally. (2) The Transport Authorities have erred in not adjudicating on the several objections taken by the writ petitioner to the extension asked by the permit holder. 2. In support of the first argument the writ petitioner’s learned Advocate has relied upon Sri Rama Vilas Service v. Road Traffic Board, AIR. 1948 Madras 400 at p. 407 and Moti Lal v. Uttar Pradesh Government, AIR. 1951 Allahabad 257 at pp. 263 & 321, where it has been observed that the interests of the public mean the interests of the travelling public, for whose convenience and need the stage carriages are provided for. The learned advocate has urged that the grant of the permit for the convenience of the Hill produce trade is not covered by the aforesaid expression, the extension is ultra vires and should be held to be such. He further relies on Onkarmal v. R.T. Authority, AIR. 1956 Cal. The learned advocate has urged that the grant of the permit for the convenience of the Hill produce trade is not covered by the aforesaid expression, the extension is ultra vires and should be held to be such. He further relies on Onkarmal v. R.T. Authority, AIR. 1956 Cal. 490 at 495, where it has been observed that the permit granted on considerations other than those covered by the section would be invalid. There is, however, a large number of judicial decisions that the words “have regard to the following matters” in S. 47 indicate the section not to be exhaustive with the result that Road Transport Authorities can take into consideration other matters that are allied or germane to the question to be decided. That proposition is supported by N. Transport Co. v. S.T. Authority, AIR. 1959 Madhya Bharat 320, Doraswami v. Natesa AIR. 1959 Mad. 453, Naib Transport (P) Ltd. v. S.N. Mukherjee, AIR. 1959 Cal. 447, Dholpur Co-op. T. & M. Union v. Appellate Authority, AIR. 1955 Raj. 19, M/s. S. N. Transport Co. v. State Transport Authority, AIR. 1957 Cal. 638, Naib Transport (Pr.) Ltd. v. S.N. Mukherji AIR. 1958 Cal. 652 and Padmanabhan v. The State, AIR. 1956 Mad. 349 and follows Ramayya v. State of Madras, AIR. 1952 Mad. 300 at p. 305 where Govinda Menon, J., has observed as follows:- “The section is not exhaustive. Though the authority has no jurisdiction to issue or refuse a permit without taking the matters mentioned therein (into consideration), the section does not in terms exclude from the consideration other matters germane to the question to be decided.” We, therefore, feel that the argument in support of the writ petition that the Transport Authorities must not take into consideration anything bat the convenience of the travelling public should not be accepted and if along with the convenience of the travelling public some allied considerations also entertained that would not be fatal to the legality of the extension. It is not disputed that area round about Palai produces pepper, which commodity is exported from Fort-Cochin. It is not disputed that area round about Palai produces pepper, which commodity is exported from Fort-Cochin. It is further not disputed that the permit holder had stated in his application for the extension about Palai being an important commercial centre and about the necessity of its being connected by a direct service with Fort-Cochin so that free flow of traffic between the two places would be possible without any change of buses as at present. In other words the permit holder had asked for extension to facilitate carrying passengers directly from Palai to Fort-Cochin, and under the prevailing arrangement there was no such direct route. It follows that the extension had been asked on the ground of convenience to the travelling public, which would incidentally help the trade of the locality from where the passengers were to be so carried, the permit, whose route was asked to be extended, being stage carriage one and meant for carrying passengers. In this context if the Regional Transport Authority extends the route the extension is for the convenience of the travelling public which is interested in exporting the Hill produce of the area from which the carriage was originally running. Therefore it cannot be said that the interest of the travelling public from Palai to Fort-Cochin was not taken into consideration because it is not denied that before the extension there was no direct service between the aforesaid towns. In these circumstances convenience to the Hill trade does not make the extension invalid as something which the Road Transport Authority could not take into consideration. These words indicate that the plea of the permit holder about his not being able to run cheaply the bus on the route already allotted to him was treated as not relevant and the extension was not given on that ground. The first ground therefore taken in support of the writ petition fails. The second ground is also without substance. Because the convenience of the travelling public and allied considerations being the main things the authorities had to consider whether the writ petitioner had any objection to the claim of there being no direct Motor Service between Palai and Fort-Cochin. It is not disputed that absence of such a service was causing inconvenience to the people travelling between the aforesaid two points. It is not disputed that absence of such a service was causing inconvenience to the people travelling between the aforesaid two points. It is also not disputed that Hill produces of the Palai area were being exported from Fort-Cochin. In this context the transport authorities cannot be treated as having failed to exercise jurisdiction by not dealing seriatim with several objections of the writ petitioner which contained nothing against direct services between the two points being allowed and the convenience thereby afforded to persons so travelling. It follows that the second ground also fails. We see no force in the writ petition which is dismissed with costs to the third respondent. Counsel fee Rs.100/-.