IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 19347 of 2004 Between: APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Manoranjan Complex, M.J. Road, Nampally, A.P. Hyderabad 500 001, rep. by its Presiding Officer. 2 Regional Transport Authaority, Ananthapur District at Ananthapur. rep. by its Secretary. 3 Smt. Achamma (died), rep. by legal representive, Sri K. Sivasankaraiah,S/o. Late K.Venkateshaiah, R/o. 4-401, Main Bazar, Madakasira, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dt. 12.7.2004 made in R.P.304/2003 on the file of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. A.P., Hyderabad in dismissing the revision petition filed against the order dt. 7.6.2003 in item No.8 in Rc.No.8305/A2/2002 of the Regional Transport Authority, Ananthapur granting variation of condition of permit on the alleged town service route Chandrakacherla to Madakasira Bus Stand to Haresamudram and quash both the orders as being illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid, and declare that the grant of variation to the 3rd respondent on the above route as being hit by the provisions of section 68(3) (ca) and 104 of M.V.Act 1988 and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KALLAKURI SRINIVASARAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.19347 of 2004 O R D E R: The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation filed this writ petition challenging the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 12-07-2004 thereby confirming the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur, dated 07-06-2003 granting variation of permit as sought by the 3rd respondent herein. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. The 3rd respondent herein is a holder of a pucca stage carriage permit plying on the route Chandrakacherla to Madakasira Bus-stand. On his request, the Regional Transport Authority, by order, dated 7-06- 2003, granted variation and aggrieved by the same the Corporation preferred a Revision under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said Revision was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal by order dated 12-07-2004 which is impugned in this writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation vehemently contended that the impugned variation is impermissible and contrary to law since the route in question overlaps the approved notified route. It is also contended that such variation resulting in extending the existing route amounts to grant of fresh permit in respect of a new route and therefore on that ground also the impugned orders are illegal. At the outset, it is to be noted that in the earlier round of litigation between the parties, this Court disposed of W.P.No.11910 of 1994 holding that the route in question is an existing route. The said order has become final and therefore basing on the same the 2nd respondent had granted the variation and the said order was rightly upheld by the 1st respondent. In the light of the said findings recorded by the 2nd respondent as well as the first respondent, the contentions raised in this writ petition are untenable and the interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is unwarranted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 27-11-2008 KLP