THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No. 25910 of 2000 Dated: 18-01-2008 Between:- A.P.S.R.T.C rep., by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. ..Petitioner And State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad, rep., by its Presiding Officer and others. ..Respondents. THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No. 25910 of 2000 : ORAL O R D E R: Notice sent to the third respondent was served on 04-01-2008, but there is no representation on his behalf. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner— APSRTC seeking a direction to call for the records relating to the order dated 18-09-2000 made by the first respondent by setting aside the order dated 22-11-1997 of the second respondent and granting stage carriage permit to the third respondent on the inter-state enclave route – Govindapattuga to Benagampeta and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction. The third respondent had made an application for inter-state enclave route – Govindapattuga to Benagampeta and the same was rejected by the second respondent by observing that notified schemes are coming in the way of granting permit to the third respondent to operate stage carriage in inter-state enclave route—Govindapattuga to Benagampeta. The third respondent being aggrieved by the same preferred an appeal before the first respondent, the appeallate authority. The said appeal was allowed and granted permit to the third respondent on a presumption that the inter-state agreement must be in existence. But the third respondent has not chosen to produce any documents in support of his plea that he is entitled for sanction of the permit for the route. It is an essential element for granting permit on an inter-state route that agreement between the two State is required, otherwise the operators of one State will not be allowed to operate the buses in other State. The two notified schemes in respect of the existing inter- state route permits have been saved under the respective Government Orders, but not the future permits. As the third respondent had made an application afresh, there is no scope to grant him permit and the permit also cannot be granted on the presumption that there must be an agreement between two States in the existence of the notified schemes. Therefore, the appellate Tribunal ought not to have granted permit to the third respondent without considering these aspects. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The permit granted by the petitioner is hereby cancelled. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 18-09- 2000. No costs. _____________________ Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, J Dated: 18-01-2008. Pvks/*