IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 802 of 2000 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19/06/2000 in WP NO : 17249 OF 1993 on the file of the High Court.) Between: B.B.Prabavathi W/o.Late B.Rama Rao R/o. Tekkali , Srikakulam Dist ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The State Transport Appellate Tribunal A.P. , Hyderabad City Civil Court Buildings Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Transport Officer Srikakulam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.T.VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : ORAL JUDGMENT: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Aggrieved by the order, dated 19.06.2000 made in WP No. 17249 of 1993 by a learned Single Judge of this court, directing the appellant herein to apply for the grant of stage carriage permits afresh under the New Motor Vehicles Act within one month, the writ petitioner preferred this Writ Appeal. The appellant’s husband died in April, 1998 and the application ﬁled by the appellant herein before the Regional Transport Authority seeking permission to allow her to operate on the route Tekkali-Ichapuram, on 22.7.1992 was dismissed and the Appeal preferred therefrom to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed. Therefore, she ﬁled the above writ petition and had been operating her vehicles on the route, pursuant to the orders of this Court. The learned Single Judge on extensive consideration of the submissions made by both the counsel, though held that the appellant did not ﬁle any application for the grant of fresh permit under the new Act nor was any application for renewal pending with the respondents as on 1.7.1989, has directed the petitioner to apply for the grant of stage carriage permits afresh under the New Act within one month from the date of the impugned order and also directed the Competent Authority to consider and pass appropriate orders within four weeks thereafter. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Appeal is ﬁled by the writ petitioner inter alia contending that since the husband of the appellant was holding one of the permits on the route on the date of the scheme i.e. on 9.11.1987, he is a saved operator. It is also contended that the appellant made application for renewal of the existing permit but the application was rejected, stating that the original permit is ceased to be ineﬀective and ceased to exist, as such the question of renewal does not arise. As can be seen from the record and the impugned order, the appellant had a valid permit from 18.12.1981 to 17.12.1986, which was further renewed upto 17.12.1988 or till the A.P.S.R.T.C. placed their vehicles on the route as per the approved scheme in GO Ms. No.1156 Transport Dated 9.11.1987. The approved scheme was published on 9.11.1987 and thus the permit of the petitioner expired. In such circumstances, the observation of the learned Single Judge that the original period for which the permit was granted to the petitioner and the renewed period, as well, had elapsed, is perfectly justiﬁed and there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner is not holding any permit. It is also evident that the petitioner neither ﬁled any application for the grant of a fresh permit under the New Act nor any such application was pending as on 1.7.1989 for the grant of renewal. As such, the learned Single Judge is right in holding that the question of permitting the petitioner to continue to ply her vehicles, which she was plying by virtue of interim orders, on the routes in question does not arise. But, however, having regard to the fact that several operators were allowed to continue to ply their vehicles and the fact that pursuant to the interim orders passed by this court, as the petitioner was plying her vehicles, has rightly directed her to apply for the grant of stage carriage permits afresh under the New Act within one month and directed the Competent Authority to consider and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law. Having gone through the entire material available on record, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is a well-considered order and does not call for any interference. Therefore, we do not ﬁnd any merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. However, in the event of availability of remedy, it is open to the petitioner to make a fresh application for the permit to ply her vehicles on the route Tekkali – Ichapuram and in such an event, the respondents shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan June 30, 2008 MAS. ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {LOBIS}