JUDGMENT M.S. Menon, C.J. 1. The petitioner in O. P. No. 942 of 1961 is the appellant before us. That petition was dismissed when it came up for admission on 1-6-1961. 2. The order dismissing the petition reads as follows: "The main point that arises for decision in this writ petition is as to the jurisdiction of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to grant additional permits over and above that notified in the Notification under S.57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. This question has been considered by me in certain other O. Ps. namely, O. P. 422/61 etc., and I have already held that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has got jurisdiction to grant additional permits. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. There is a subsidiary point that has been raised, no doubt, in the writ petition for which no material has been placed before me; and that is, there has been a notification issued under S.47(3) restricting the number of buses that are to operate over this route. In the absence of any material on this point, I am not inclined to entertain this objection either. Therefore, the writ petition fails and is dismissed." The view expressed by the learned Judge in O. P. No. 422 of 1961 was accepted as correct by a Full Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 60 of 1961 on 11-6-1962. 3. Our attention has been drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in C. A. No. 195 of 1962 dated 31-7-1962. In that case the Supreme Court said : "Where a limit has been fixed under S.47(3) by the Regional Transport Authority and thereafter the said authority proceeds to consider applications for permits under S.48 read with S.57 the Regional Transport Authority must confine the number of permits issued by it within those limits and on an appeal or revision by an aggrieved person, the appellate authority or the revisional authority must equally be confined to the issue of permits within the limits fixed under S.47(3)." The decision also deals with the cases in which a fixation under S.47(3) will be assumed even if no separate resolution in that behalf is forthcoming. 4. 4. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court mentioned above, we have come to the conclusion that the order of dismissal should be set aside and O. P. No. 942 of 1961 entertained by this Court. The O. P. is hence admitted and will be posted for hearing in due course. The parties will file their affidavits and documents, if any, within three weeks from this date. 5. The appeal is allowed as above. No Costs.