IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No: 1977 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29.06.2001 in WP No: 8608 of 1995 on the file of the High Court.) BETWEEN: APSRTC, rep. by its Vice- Chairman and Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. ... APPELLANT AND State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad, rep. by Secretary, (City Civil Court Buildings) and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.K.SRINIVAS RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT MR. V.V. P. RAO MR. ARIFULLA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzupurkar) This appeal is against the order of the learned Single Judge in WP.No.8608 of 1995 whereunder the writ petition was allowed. 2. The third respondent/writ petitioner, who is a holder of two-stage carriage permits on the route Hindupur to Gopindevarapalle via Pulamati, Basampalle, Jeamakulapalle, Malya, Jagareddihalli etc., made an application for variation of the route on 25.10.1993 of one of the permits held by him. On the said application, a report was called for from the Regional Transport Authority concerned, who confirmed that there was no legal impediment. But, however, the second respondent rejected the said application on the ground that it amounts to grant of fresh permit and that the traveling public would be put to inconvenience. Questioning the same, an appeal was preferred by the third respondent before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which was also dismissed and thereupon, he questioned both the said orders in WP.No.8608 of 1995. The learned Single Judge found that APSRTC is also running buses on the same route and as such the ground of public being put to inconvenience as stated in the impugned order is unsustainable. On the second aspect, the learned Single Judge found that the application is made for variation of the route under Sub-section 3 of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the route to the extent of deviation is not covered by notified scheme. The writ petition was accordingly allowed directing the second respondent to issue permit to the petitioner on the variated route as sought for by him under his application dated 25.10.1993. Questioning the same, APSRTC is in appeal before us. 3. We have heard both the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the third respondent. 4. The basic contention that such application for variation amounts to grant of fresh permit was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the application was made under Section 80(3) of the Act and the said variation had no concern with any notified route. It is not in dispute that neither the variation sought for nor the existing route is part of any scheme. Appellant, as objector, who is also running services on existing route cannot be said to suffer any prejudice. The impugned order was not stayed and the same continued to operate during last about eight years. Secondly, there is also no question of public being put to any inconvenience as the third respondent as well as APSRTC are running services on the said route. The reasons given by the learned Single Judge, therefore, cannot be found to be perverse nor can be said to warrant interference. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J March 30, 2009 DSK