HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.A. No.90 of 2008 Date: 7-2-2008 Between: B. Satyam. … Appellant. and The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents. :JUDGMENT: Per Gopala Krishna Tamada, J This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.2.2007 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 4.6.2002 affirming the order of the State Transport Appellate Authority dated 16.10.1999, rejecting the application of the appellant for grant of a new stage carriage permit. Evidently, the appellant who was an existing operator on the interstate route Parvathipuram to Ichapuram was already holding a permit on the said route covered by a scheme approved under G.O.Ms.No.1139 dated 9.11.1987. Since the scheme does not provide for grant of a new permit in favour of the operator other than the permit already in existence, the Transport Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal rejected the application of the appellant. Sri K. Srinivasarao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for A.P. State Road Transport Corporation drew our attention to a decision of this Court in B. Satyam vs. The Secretary, State Transport Appellate Authority, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad[1] which was between the same parties ie appellant and State Transport Authority and submitted that the point involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the said decision. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the other hand, submitted that though the decision is between the same parties, on facts, it has no application to the present case. Be that as it may, we are of the view that there is no merit in the appeal. The learned single Judge on an appreciation of the material on record rightly found that the scheme covered by G.O.Ms.No.1139 does not create any right in the existing stage carriage permit holders to seek more stage carriage permits after publication of the scheme and accordingly declined to interfere with the order passed by the State Transport Authority. No exception can be taken to the said view taken by the learned single Judge. We, therefore, see no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 7th February, 2008 GOPALA KRISHNA TADAMA,J vtv [1] 1994(2) ALT 385