JAGAT NARAYAN, C.J.—This is a special appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The appellant is an existing operator of Dungarpur-Sagwara Galivakot route The Regional Transport Authority granted permits to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation u/sec. 68-F(i-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act for a route which completely overlapped the route of the appellant. A representation was filed opposing the grant by the Dungarpur-Sagwara-Banswara-Galiyakot bus Association. Annexure P-5 is that representation. It was signed by the Manager of the Bus Association as well as by two members of the Association namely Bhawani Shankar and the appellant Shashi Kant. Despite the representation two permits were granted to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The appellant filed an appeal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal. It was dismissed on a preliminary objection that the appellant did not deliver a copy of his written representation to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation as required by sec 75(4). It was contended on behalf of the appellant before the Tribunal that the representation, annexure P-5, which was admittedly delivered to it, should be treated as a representation not only on behalf of the Bus Association but also on behalf of himself as it was signed by him. This argument was not accepted and the appeal was rejected on the above preliminary ground. The appellant then filed a writ petition. The learned single fudge agreed with the view taken by the Transport Appellate Tribunal Appellate Tribunal and dismissed it. 3. The same contention has been put forward on behalf of the appellant before us as was put forward by him before the Tribunal and before the learned single Judge We see no reason to differ from the view taken by the learned single Judge. The appellant will be deemed to have signed the representation as member of the Association. If he had made a representation as an individual on his own behalf then alone he would have been entitled to file an appeal. 4. The appellant will be deemed to have signed the representation as member of the Association. If he had made a representation as an individual on his own behalf then alone he would have been entitled to file an appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the following passage occurring in the judgment of this Court in D. C. Transport Ltd. vs. A. A. Rajasthan(l) : "The conclusion therefore, to which we arrive at, is that where an appeal has been made under clause fa) against the refusal of a permit, the Appellate Authority will generally have the right to give relief to the appellant by grant of a permit, but will not have any jurisdiction to cancel the permit granted to another person, unless a foundation has been laid before the Regional Transport Authority for an appeal provided by clause (f) by an objection by some body entitled to appeal under that clause. If such objection has been made then it does not matter whether that particular person appeals or not. In such a case, on an appeal under sec. 64(a), the Appellate Authority may consider the objection of the nature specified in clause (f) before the Regional Transport Authority and give its own decision in the matter. The view taken in the above decision was disapproved by the Supreme Court in Ramgopal vs. Anant Prasad(2). It was held that if an appeal is competent under clause (a) of sec. 64 the order granting a permit can be set aside even if the case was not such that an appeal under clause (f) would have been competent. In view of the Supreme Court decision the above observations made in the Rajasthan case cannot he said to be laying down good law. We are of the opinion that if a representation is made by an association representing persons interested in the provision of road transport facilities then only that association would be entitled to file an appeal under sec. 64(f) and not individual members of it who did not make any individual representation against the grant of permit. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant wanted to contend that he was entitled to file an appeal in this case against the grant of temporary permits to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation under sec. 64(f) and not individual members of it who did not make any individual representation against the grant of permit. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant wanted to contend that he was entitled to file an appeal in this case against the grant of temporary permits to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation under sec. 68-F (I-A) because he had opposed the grant of these permits before the Regional Transport Authority without making any representation in writing. This point has not been dealt with in the judgment of the learned single Judge and we therefore declined to permit him to raise it. If he had argued it before the learned single Judge, as he contends he did, then he should have applied for a review of the judgment when he found that the point had not been dealt with in it. 6. In the result we dismiss the appeal without any order as costs.