Judgment LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J. 1. The petitioners are holding permanent permits for plying stage carriage service from Muzaffarpur to Debaria Bazar via Kanti and Sayee covering a distance of about 34 miles. Respondent No. 3 also has been plying a stage carriage on another route between Muzaffarpur and Fatehabad covering a distance of 38 miles, under a permanent permit granted in 1966. The permits of the petitioners and Respondent No. 3 have been renewed from time to time. Respondent No. 3 made a prayer before the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority (Respondent No. 2) for extension of his service from Muzaffarpur to Debaria Bazar covering a distance of 26 miles. The petitioners filed an objection to this as a portion of this extension overlapped with the route on which the petitioners were plying. The local police recommended the prayer for extension, but Respondent No. 2 rejected the same on the ground that the extension sought for was for more than 15 miles, which was not permissible and that the proposed route was a separate and distinct route. The order was passed on the 15th September, 1972, a copy whereof is annexed to the writ application as annexure 1. Respondent No. 3 filed a revision application under S. 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before Respondent No. 1 on the 16th December, 1972. Even after excluding the time taken in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order, the application was barred by limitation by one day. Respondent No. 3 filed an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. After considering the grounds mentioned therein, Respondent No. 1 condoned the delay and allowed the application on merits holding that the prayer for extension was proper, reasonable and fit to be allowed. A copy of this order is annexed to the writ application as Annexure 2. The petitioners have challenged this order by the present writ application. 2. Mr. Ram Nandan Sahai Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the application for extension was filed under the provisions of S. 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the view taken by Respondent No. 2 in Annexure 1 is correct. 2. Mr. Ram Nandan Sahai Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the application for extension was filed under the provisions of S. 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the view taken by Respondent No. 2 in Annexure 1 is correct. The extended distance must be learned counsel contended considered to be a new route and the entire procedure applicable for grant, of any permit have to be adopted by the authorities before the prayer could be granted. It was further contended that no extension beyond an additional distance of 24 kilo meters was permissible in view of the proviso to clause (xxi) of Sec. 48 (3) of the Act, Mr. Sinha also challenged the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 1 to condone the delay in filing the revision application. 3. In support of his argument on the question of limitation Mr. Sinha relied upon the decision in Ramnath Prasad V/s. State transport Appellate Authority ( AIR 1957 Pat 117 ). This case was decided under Sec. 5 of the old Limitation Act which applied to any appeal or any application for a review of judgment or for leave to appeal or "any other application to which this section was made applicable" by or under any enactment. It was held in Ramnaths case that Sec. 5 had not been made applicable to applications under Motor Vehicles Act. The present application before Respondent No. 1 was governed by Sec. 5 of the new Limitation Act which states that the provision would apply to any appeal or any application other than one under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is manifest, therefore, that the aforesaid decision has no application whatsoever after the new Limitation Act has come into force. There is no merit in the point raised by the petitioners that Respondent No. 1 was not vested with power to condone the delay. 4. Mr. Saptami Jha, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3, in reply to the other argument on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the prayer for extension was granted by Respondent No. 1 under Rule 68 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, and although the application might have been wrongly labelled under Sec. 57 (8) of the Act, this provision did not apply. Reliance was placed on the case of Basudeo Tiwary V/s. Bagun Sumbrui, ( AIR 1971 Pat 201 ). The respondent in that case had a permit for the route Piro-Behea, which was extended up to Buxar and the petitioner in that case who was operating on Arrah-Buxar route objected to the extension. Reliance was placed by the petitioner in that case on Sec. 48 (3), proviso (xxi), as has been done by the petitioners in the present case. The respondent in Basudeo Tiwarys case contended that the provision was not attracted inasmuch as the condition mentioned in clause (xxi) of Sec. 48 (3) of the Act was not attached to the permit of the respondent. The Relevant provisions had been introduced in the Act on the 2nd March, 1970 and the permit in that case had been granted on an earlier date and there was no question of attaching the condition to the permit. The Division Bench accepted the contention which was supported by a Supreme Court decision and after considering the provision of Rule 68 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules held that the extension could be validly granted under the said rule. In the present case also, the original permit was granted in 1968 and the condition mentioned in clause (xxi) of Sec. 48 (3) of the Act has not been attached to it. The present case, therefore, is clearly governed by the decision in Basudeo Tiwarys case and the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners must, therefore, be overruled. 5. In the result, this writ application fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 100/-. SHAMBHU PRASAD SINGH, J. 6 I agree.