Short Note : 1. The petitioners by this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seek to quash the order dated 28-7-77 (Annexure-A) passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Ujjain and the order dated 30-8-77 passed in Revision No. 209 of 77 by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior with respect to the grant of temporary permit to respondent No.3 Ishwarsingh. Held : The next question for consideration is whether the petitioners have got any right to file this petition. Admittedly the petitioners did not apply for the grant of temporary permit with respect to the route in question. They are the regular permit holders for the route Ujjain-Tarana, the period of which will expire in July 1979. The temporary permit was issued by the Regional Transport Authority to the respondent on the route Ujjain - Makdone via. Tarana. In revision the State Transport Appellate Tribunal curtailed the said route between Bhaukhedi and Makdone. The respondent No.3 is, therefore, entitled to operate between Ujjain to Bhaukhedi, i. e. Tarana. The petitioners, therefore, have got no right •to challenge the impugned grant simply became they got one more competitor to operate on the route, the part of which is being operated by them. 2. The order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as regards the curtailment of the route between Bhaukhedi and Makdone passed in Revision No. 209 of 77, vide Annexure-B, cannot also be called as bad in law. It may be noted that the route between Bhaukhedi and Makdone was not governed by the nationalised scheme and hence the Regional Transport Authority was not empowered to issue temporary permit with respect to the said part of the route under section 68-F (I-C) read with section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act By curtailment of the route from the temporary permit issued to respondent No.3 the State Transport Appellate Tribunal did not actually change the route. Section 2 (28-A) defines 'route' as under: " 'route' means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another." 3. Section 2 (28-A) defines 'route' as under: " 'route' means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another." 3. It is thus clear that by the curtailment the highway for which temporary permit was sought by the respondent No.3 was not changed and hence the appellate Tribunal had the jurisdiction to correct the mistake committed by the R. T. A. in granting temporary permit with respect to the portion of the mute which was not covered by the nationalised scheme. That apart by the said curtailment the only person who is aggrieved is the respondent No.3 and not the petitioners. 1966 JLJ 427 referred to, 1966 JLJ 384 distinguished, 1976 JLJ 885 (F. B) 1974 MPLJ 862 , 1976 MPLJ 268 and AIR 1976 S.C. 578 relied on. Petition dismissed.