Judgment :- 1. The order challenged is one passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Trivandrum on 28-11-1963 and produced along with the affidavit in support of the writ application as Ext. P-3. By that order an application for variation of a stage carriage permit held by the second respondent on the route Vilabhagom-Chathanoor via Kallambalam, Parippally, Koonayil and Paravoor was allowed. The variation sought was that the route between the above-said termini should run along Warkalai, Aiyroor, Ooninmoodu, Koonayil and Paravoor. The order allowing the variation is very short and reads as follows: "Heard the parties. The applicant urged that by adopting this variation the overlapping of the nationalised route is avoided. The over-crowded route from Warkala to Kallambalam is also avoided. The total length of the route is reduced by about seven miles. There are only two buses in the sector from Ayroor to Ooninmoodu. The party retains the route from Vilabhagom to Warkala and Odyil to Chathanoor via Paravoor. In the circumstances the variation is sanctioned." 2. The petitioner had moved an application for a permit on the route Kayikara-Paravoor via Warkala, Aiyroor, Oonnmoodu and Koonayil. This was as early as 1958. That application was also published as required by S.57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and was the first item to be considered at the meeting of the first respondent at which meeting Ext. P-3 order was passed. On the same day on which the variation of the permit held by the second respondent was granted by Ext. P-3 another order Ext. P4 was passed rejecting the application of the petitioner. An appeal has been taken from that order Ext. P-4 by the petitioner and that appeal is now pending before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 3. A sketch showing the routes has been produced as Ext. P-5 in this case. 4. I may also refer to the fact that there have been two applications by the second respondent for operating on the route Kayikkara to Paravoor made earlier and these were allowed by the Regional Transport Authority. 3. A sketch showing the routes has been produced as Ext. P-5 in this case. 4. I may also refer to the fact that there have been two applications by the second respondent for operating on the route Kayikkara to Paravoor made earlier and these were allowed by the Regional Transport Authority. There was an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the grants made to the second respondent and that authority confirmed the grant of one of the permits but set aside the grant of the second permit and an order remanding the case to the Regional Transport Authority for reconsideration of the application of the petitioner as well as that of the second respondent was made. The order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was set aside by this Court on the ground that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to remand the case to the Regional Transport Authority. The grants of these permits have now become final and no question arises regarding these grants. 5. I doubted whether this writ application should be heard on the merits for I was inclined to take the view that the order Ext. P-3 was in effect an order granting a new permit to the 2nd respondent. If it amounted to an order granting a new permit the order is appealable under S.64 of the Motor Vehicles Act. My attention however has been invited to the decision of this Court in V.G.K. Bus Service Ltd. v. Kerala State Transport Appellate Tribunal reported in 1961 KLT. 473. This is a Division Bench ruling and the view, it seems to me, has been taken therein that an order similar to Ext. P-3 is not appealable. I do not think-in the circumstances I should express any opinion myself on this question. I follow the Division Bench ruling and assume that the order Ext. P-3 is not appealable. The view taken in the above Division Bench ruling may require reconsideration on an appropriate occasion but it is unnecessary to deal with the question for the purpose of this case. 6. Counsel has urged that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to grant the variation of the permit held by the second respondent because what was sought was a change in the route and a route mentioned in a permit is not a condition of a permit. 6. Counsel has urged that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to grant the variation of the permit held by the second respondent because what was sought was a change in the route and a route mentioned in a permit is not a condition of a permit. He is supported in this contention by a Full Bench ruling of the Madras High Court in S.V. Natesa Mudaliar, Proprietor S.L.N.S. Transports, Kancheepuram v. Sri. Dhanapal Bus Service Private Ltd., Kancheepuram and others reported in AIR. 1964 Madras 136. S.57(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act reading as under it was held cannot be attracted at all since the sub-section specifically mentions an application for varying the conditions of any permit. "57 (8). 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 the 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." S. 57(8) does not confer any special jurisdiction on the Regional Transport Authority. If the authority has the power to grant a permit, he necessarily has the power to alter that permit also. There is no reason why this power should not be exercised at the request of a permit holder. S.57(8) is only a limitation on the exercise of this power. The nature of the changes sought for in a permit may be such that after the changes a new permit may come into being. In such cases the Sub Section indicates that the procedure prescribed by S.57 for the grant of a new permit should be followed. S.57(8) is only a limitation on the exercise of this power. The nature of the changes sought for in a permit may be such that after the changes a new permit may come into being. In such cases the Sub Section indicates that the procedure prescribed by S.57 for the grant of a new permit should be followed. This Section certainly cannot be relied on for the purpose of ascertaining the powers of the R.T.A. Apart from this it is the view stated by Ramamurthy, J. in the dissenting judgment in S.V. Natesa Mudaliar, Proprietor, S.L.N.S. Transports, Kancheepuram v. Sri. Dhanapal Bus Service Ltd., Kancheepuram and others reported in AIR. 1964 Madras 136 that appeals to me. The relevant passage is the following: "A harmonious reading of S.48, 57 (8), 60(1), 63, 64,123 and 129A leaves no room for doubt that under the scheme of the Act as amended, the Transport Authority continues to have the same power and jurisdiction to vary the route whether regarded as a condition of the permit or otherwise and that there is no distinction between a stage carriage or any other vehicle in the matter of the power of variation. If one may say so, the legislature has not placed the route of a stage carriage in any special or exalted position or high pedestal. The only change that has been introduced is that in the case of other vehicles the authority has got the option to impose a condition relating to the route as one of the conditions to be inserted in the permit while in the case of a stage carriage, the section makes it compulsory for the authorities concerned to insert the condition in the permit, that it shall be valid only for specific route and leaves no discretion in the matter. I am clearly of the opinion that such change as has been employed in the language has been solely with a view to emphasise the mandatory or peremptory character of this aspect, and not for any other purpose. I am clearly of the opinion that such change as has been employed in the language has been solely with a view to emphasise the mandatory or peremptory character of this aspect, and not for any other purpose. If the other provisions of the Act show that the route is regarded as a condition of the permit and the authority has power to vary the same, I see no insuperable difficulty in interpreting S.48 in that manner." I find that the Andhra Pradesh High Court has taken the same view in the decision reported in (1964) II Andhra Pradesh Weekly Reported Notes of Recent Cases page 45 and the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Heerala and others v. The State of Rajasthan and others reported in AIR. 1959 Rajasthan 41 also is to the same effect. 7. The order Ext. P-4 cannot therefore be impugned on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. This writ application is dismissed but I make no order as to costs. Dismissed.