HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1658 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Kumar) The order dated 17.07.2002 dismissing W.P.No.8751 of 2002 is under appeal. The appellant/unsuccessful petitioner, being the transferee of a route permit granted in favour of one T.Ramgopal, challenged the order dated 28.02.2002 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad in R.P.No.42 of 2000 in the said writ petition. The Appellate Tribunal had upheld the objection of the APSRTC with regard to the sanction of the route permit in favour of the predecessor of the petitioner on the ground that Rule 258 (ii) of the A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for brevity 'the Rules') was violated, which requires that specific permission of the transport Commissioner should be obtained wherever a town service route extended more than 8 kms. beyond the limit of the Municipality or town from which it operates. The learned Single Judge placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. vs. State Transport Tribunal and others[1], wherein the Supreme Court held that the permission of the transport Commissioner contemplated in Rule 258 (ii) of the Rules necessarily has to be obtained before an application for permit is filed under the A.P. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Placing reliance upon the said judgment, the learned Single Judge held that there was no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal warranting interference in the writ petition and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Sri P.V.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that Rule 258 (ii) of the Rules did not require grant of permission on every occasion. Once permission is granted it is not required that subsequent applications should also be filed only after obtaining permission from the transport Commissioner. We are unable to accept this contention. The Rule does not lend itself to such an interpretation inasmuch as it specifically states that as and when the town service route extends more than 8 kms beyond the limit of the municipality or town from which it operates, specific permission of the transport commissioner is a pre-requisite. In the above circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in 1 supra. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, this order shall not preclude the appellant from applying for a route permit in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ Date: 04-08-2009 SANJAY KUMAR, J SKM [1] AIR 1998 SC 2629