Judgment :- 1. When C.M.P. 2396/89 came up for orders, counsel appearing on either side wanted the original petition itself disposed of. Accordingly, I heard them in detail. I am disposing of the original petition. 2. The first respondent, the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram at its meeting held on 18-8-1988 accepted proposal for the introduction of a new stage carriage service on the route Parappur-Anjumoola (via) Kottakkal Puthonothani, Valancherry and Thiruvegappura and one in the opposite direction Anjumoola-Parappur and decided to invite application for temporary permit and pucca permit. In response to the notification issued u/S. 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 5 persons filed their Applications. Those applications were sent for publication u/S. 57(3) of the Act. It was so published in the Gazette dated 20-12-1988. In the application put in by the third respondent, against column No. 6 the number of the vehicle was given as K.L.M. 3831 or later model. In the notification u/S. 57(3) of the Act, the number of his vehicle was shown as K.R.M. 3831 or later model. Vehicle bearing reg. No. K.R.M. 3831 was later to K.L.M. 3831 and it was a jeep. Coming to know of this mistake, the second respondent issued an erratum notification evidenced by Ext. P4 dated 10-1-1989. 3. The first notification u/S. 57 (3) of the Act was dated 20-12-1988. The period for filing the representation as per that notification was to expire on 19-1-1989. The erratum notification Ext.P4 was issued on 10-1-1989. The 30 days from the date of that erratum notification was to expire only on 9-2-1989. The first respondent took action to consider the application for the issue of the pucca permit on the route at its meeting scheduled on 30-1-1989. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by 30-1-1989 the 30 days period from Ext.P4 notification will not be over and so the applications should not have been posted for consideration at the meeting to be held on 30-1-1989. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by 30-1-1989 the 30 days period from Ext.P4 notification will not be over and so the applications should not have been posted for consideration at the meeting to be held on 30-1-1989. In the application put in by the petitioner against column No. 6 he had given the following details: "will be furnished later of a latest model vehicle." In the notification u/S. 57(3) of the Act it was notified:- "will be furnished later of a later model vehicle." This notification, according to counsel, is against the details given in his application and so there should be a erratum notification rectifying the mistake. After the publication of that erratum notification it is contended that the first respondent should take up the applications only after the expiry of 30 days. On these basis this original petition has been filed. 4. The second respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit disputing the claims of the petitioner. The third respondent in his turn has filed another counter affidavit. 5. As per S.57(3) of the Act, the R.T.A. has to publish the application or the substance thereof in the manner prescribed by the Rules. That provision makes it clear that the entire application is not to be published. The substance thereof need alone be published. The application or the substance thereof is published so as to enable the interested parties to file their representations in connection with details given in those applications. This means either the publication of the application or substance thereof is to enable the interested parties to make effective representation in connection with the applications. So all details that are necessary to enable the interested parties to make the representation should be made available by the said publication. If material errors have been crept in at the time of the first notification, the R.T.A. is bound to correct those errors by publishing erratum notifications. Only on such publication of the erratum notification will the interested parties come to know of the actual state of affairs for submitting effective representations. The period of 30 days fixed in S.57(3) of the Act is to enable the interested parties to file such effective representation. Only on such publication of the erratum notification will the interested parties come to know of the actual state of affairs for submitting effective representations. The period of 30 days fixed in S.57(3) of the Act is to enable the interested parties to file such effective representation. In such a situation if the actual state of affairs are brought out only by the erratum notifications then interested persons should get 30 days from the date of publication of those erratum notifications for filing representations. 6. In the instant case the first notification was issued on 20-12-1988. In that the third respondent was shown to have offered K.R.M. 3831 as the vehicle sought to be put on the route. In fact the third respondent had stage carriage bearing Reg. No. K.L.M. 3831 only. K.L.M. 3831 was an old model vehicle. K.R.M. 3831 is a later model jeep. So there was material error in the publication of the application as far as the third respondent was concerned. When that mistake was realised the second respondent caused the publication of Ext.P4 erratum notification. By that notification alone the rival applicants came to know of the actual model of the vehicle sought to be put on the route by the third respondent. Then and then alone could they file an effective representation. They should get 30 days from the date of publication of the erratum notification. Since the erratum notification, Ext.P4 was dated 10-1-1989, the 30 days period will expire on 9-2-1989 only. Before the expiry of the 30 days the first respondent notified the consideration of the applications in the meeting scheduled to take place on 30-1-1989. It was within the period of 30 days fixed u/S. 57(3) of the Act. It was clearly illegal. The first respondent did not consider the applications for the permit at its meeting held on 30-1-1989. Now the period of 30 days has expired from the date of the publication of the erratum notification on 10-1-1989. Now the applications are ripe for consideration by the first respondent. The first respondent can consider the applications for the route at its next meeting. 7. The petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a second erratum notification to correct some mistake stated to have crept in, in describing the vehicle offered by him. Now the applications are ripe for consideration by the first respondent. The first respondent can consider the applications for the route at its next meeting. 7. The petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a second erratum notification to correct some mistake stated to have crept in, in describing the vehicle offered by him. In the application put in by the petitioner against column No. 6 he made the entry "will be furnished later of a latest model vehicle." This has been notified in Ext.P1 as "will be furnished later of a later model vehicle." According to counsel for the petitioner, the change of the word "latest" to "later" has gone, to prejudice the petitioner and so direction should be given to the second respondent to issue an erratum notification. I do not find any merit in this contention. As per S.57(3). the Regional Transport Authority is bound to publish only the substance of the application. Ext.P1 brings out clearly the substance of the petitioner's application. No error has crept in, in publishing Ext.Pl. So the second prayer of the petitioner is declined. In view of what has been stated above, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs asked for in this O.P. as on today. The original petition is dismissed.