Judgment:
Jagat Narayan, C.J.
1. 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 Galiyakot route. The Regional Transport Authority granted two permits to the Rajas-than State Road Transport Corporation under Section 68-F (1-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 Raja-sthan 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 Rajas-than State Road Transport Corporation as required by Section 57 (4). It was contended on behalf of the appellant be-fore 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 an 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 Judge agreed with the view taken by the Transport Appellate Tribunal and dismissed it
3. The same contention has beenput forward on behalf of the appellantbefore us as was put forward by himbefore the Tribunal and before thelearned single Judge. We see no reason todiffer from the view taken by the learned single Judge. The appellant will bedeemed to have signed the representation as a member of the Association. Ifhe had made a representation as an individual on his own behalf then alone hewould have been entitled to file anappeal.
4. The learned counsel for the ap-pellant drew our attention to the following passage occurring in the judgment of this Court in D. C. Transport Ltd. v.A. A. Rajasthan, 1954 Raj LW 649 = (AIR 1955 Rai 19):
'The conclusion, therefore, to which we arrive at, is that where an appeal has been made under Clause (a) 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 the 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 Section 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 Ram Gopal v. Anant Prasad. AIR 1959 SC 851. It was held that if an appeal is competent under Clause (a) of Section 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 be 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 Section 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 Section 68-F (1-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 iudgment 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 to costs.