·contains the power of the R.T.A. to first determH1e the. number of permits necessary for a particular route, [which dec1s1on,. as held by this Court, is not appealable under s. 64 (a)], contams also the power to decide whether a proposed route . should be opened or not, and that it is only after these two pomts are first decided, that the question, who amongst the applicants showld be granted permits, arises. It is at this latter stage that the question of granting or refusing to grant a permit arises under s; 48, and it is against an order under that section that an appeal under s. 64(a) is provided. The argument was based on the principle that a right of appeal is not something which is inherent, but is that which and to the . extent it is provided for by the · statute. . The provisions of the Act relevant to the questions raised in this appeal as also their scheme have been more than once examined by this Court. There is, therefore, no necessity to analyse them once more. In Abdul Mateen v. R. K. Pand'ey(') the question was whether the Bihar Governnent acting under ·s. 64-A, as amended by the Bihar Amendment Act, 1950, had the power to increase the number of permits for which rpplica- tions had been invited by the R.T.A. In negtiving the claim that the State Govrnment had such power, this Court inter a/ia held thats. 47(3) was concerned with a "general order" limiting stage carriages on a consideration of matters specified in s. 4 7, and that such an order can be modified by the R.T.A. if it so decides one way or the other. But such a modification is not a matter' llf consideration when it is dealing with the actual grant of permit under s. 48 read with s. 57, for, at that stage what the R.T.A.·has to do is to choose between various applicants who may have applied under s. 46. The Court held that that is not the stage when the "general order" passed under s. 47(3) can be reconsidered, for, the order under s. 48 is subject to s. 47 including the provisions of s. 47(3) ander which the "general order" limiting the number of permits is passed. At page 531 of the Report, the Court further held that the appeal contemplated under s. 64 is by a person who is aggrieved by the order specified therein and does not contemplate - any appeal against "the general order" passed und.;r s. 4 7 ( 3). Ori this view of s. 47, it was lastly held that when an appeal is taken from an order under s. 48 and a revision is applied tor under s. 64-A · o.f the Bihar Amendment Act, the power of the Appellate Autho~1ty, as also of. the State Go 0vernmentasthe revisional authority, is as much subject to s. 47(.>) as the power of the RT.A. under s. 48, i.e., it cannot grant a permit beyond the limit alreadv decided upon under s. 47(3). In Mis. Java Ram Mo.tor Sen·i;e
