Judgment Uday Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner was bolder of Stage Carriage permit for the route Sheohar-Sitamarhi-Sorsand-Bhitha-Charout and Madhopur. Respondent no.2 held a permit to ply his bus for the route Sheohar-Sitamarhi-Sursand and Parthar. Respondent No.2 filed an application for modification/extension of the permit. It was prayed that the journey from Surtand to paribar be deleted and respondent No.2 be permitted to take his bus to sahargbat. The application for alteration/modification/extension was published in the State Gazette. No objection was received to the prayer of respondent No.2. The Chairman, North Bihar Regional Transport Authority, muzaffarpur, allowed the application of respondent No.2 by order dated 8-10-1982, in the pan and band of the Chairman. The petitioner has avened that it was then that the petitioner came to know that the permit of respondent No.2 had been altered and that he was trodding on the toes of the petitioner The present application was thus filed on 18-12-1982. This writ application was admitted by order dated 4-2-1983. The Bench admitting this application, did not stay the operation of Annexure-2. That is now this writ application has been listed for hearing. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order contained in Annexure 2 altering the route of respondent No.2 was illegal as the application of respondent No.2 was not notified in any important news paper. It is not in controversy that the application of respondent No.2 was published in the Bihar Gazette on 4-8-1982. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as a result of non-application of the application in important news paper resulted in the petitioner not having filed objection. The submission initially appeared to have substance but on deeper analysis i am not inclined to find any force. The application had been hung on the notice board of the Authority. It had been published in the official Gazette and it had also been forwarded to District Magistrate, Sitamarhi. In tact tbe superintendent of police, Sitamarhi, had recommended alteration in the route prescribed for respondent No.2. It is true that everybody does not subscribe to the Gazette but from the fact that the application had been published in the office of the Transport authority and a copy thereof was forwarded to District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, I am inclined to take the view that the requirement of Rule 46 had been substantially complied. It is true that everybody does not subscribe to the Gazette but from the fact that the application had been published in the office of the Transport authority and a copy thereof was forwarded to District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, I am inclined to take the view that the requirement of Rule 46 had been substantially complied. It is not the case of the petitioner that he did not know about the prayer of respondent no.2. It has not been evened that the petitioner did not know about the petition as it had not been hang on the notice board of the Regional transport Authority. In absence of such averment it is difficult to as sume that the petitioner was prejudice by publication of the application in the gazette and its non-publication in any important news paper. The submission urged in this behalf as urged on behalf of the petitioner must, therefore, be rejected as untenable. 3. The next submission is that the Chairman had no jurisdiction to alter the route prescribed in the original permit. Having held that the provisions of Rule 46 had been substantially complied the consequence thereof must follow, The consequence would be to consider whether any objection could have been filed and whether it was in fact filed. In this case no objection was filed although I am of the view that the petitioner has not shown that he could not file any objection. Rule 41-A Sub-section (1) of the motor Vehicle Act lays down that the Regional Transport Authority may delegate its powers to the Chairman. Since Rule 43 provides that the delegation may relate to grant or of refusal of stage carriage permit where no representation is submitted under Sub-section (3) of Rule 53 of the Act this case must, therefore, be held to be one in which no representation had been filed by the petitioner. In my view, therefore, the Chairman had power to grant the prayer of respondent No.2. 4. There is however, yet another aspect of the matter. The permit of respondent No.2 wai originally for the rout Sheohar to Parihar a distance of only fifty kilo Metres. After the extension the route is about eighty kilo metres That makes a substantial change. The estimate of these distences have not been mentioned in the petition to the counter-affidavit but has been stated at the bar and not disputed by either party. After the extension the route is about eighty kilo metres That makes a substantial change. The estimate of these distences have not been mentioned in the petition to the counter-affidavit but has been stated at the bar and not disputed by either party. The Chairman had overlooked one important aspect, namely, the distance by which the length of the permit was effected. The permit, as it now stands, after the amendment, brines about a radical change in the original permit granted to respondent no 2 In Abdul Mohi Siddiqui V/s. The State Transport Appellate Authority, gwalier and others. AIR 1969 Madhya Pradebh Page 13, Madhya Pradesh hiah Court held that while the chairman has power to grant extension he does not have jurisdiction to alter the very nature of the route. An extension of the permit for a few kilo Metres may be permissible. But here I find that not only has the distance become longer considerably but the service to the citizens between Sursand and Parihar has been denied. Respondent No.2s permit now covers the length of an extra area of Surmand to Bhitha-Charout-saharghat. This was a substantial variation which the Chairman had no jurisdiction to make. In that view of the matter Annexure 2 permitting change in the permit is hereby quashed. It will, however, be open to respondent no 2 to apply afresh for the change in the permit and the Transport authority will follow the entire procedure in regard to grant a fresh permit. Until that decision in this behalf is taken, respondent No.2 will continue to ply his bus on the amended route. 5. This application is disposed of in the above terms. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Application decided accordingly.