IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE 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 : 809 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 06/02/2001 in WP NO : 1585 OF 1994 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Divisional Manager (now re-designated as Dy. Chief Traffic Manager) A.P.S.R.T.C., Kakinada, East Godavari Dist. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 State Transport Appellate Tribunal Presiding Officer City Civil Court Buildings, A.P., Hyderabad 2 Regional Transport Authority East Godavari Dist. Kakinada 3 M. Srinivasu Mandapeta, East Godavari Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.KANCHISRINIVAS RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 809 of 2001 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Shri Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar) This writ appeal is preferred by the APSRTC against the order dated 06-2-2001 in WP.No. 1585 of 1994 passed by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that as per the scheme under GO.Rt.No.782, dated 13-6-1972 there is no exemption permitting private operators to obtain permit on moffusil service route and what is analysed and prohibited under the aforesaid scheme is only moffusil services but not on the existing town service routes. Therefore, no fresh permission is required to obtain for grant of permit on the existing town service route. 2. The third respondent-owner of the bus filed an application for grant of variation to pucca stage carriage permit on the existing town service route i.e., Mandapeta to Tatapudi. His application was considered by the Regional Transpoort Authority on 16-3-1993 and was rejected by an order dated 14-6-1993. Questioning the same, the third respondent filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in AP.No.890 of 1993. The said appeal was heard and allowed by the Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 03-11-1992. Questioning the said order, WP.No.1585 of 1994 has been filed by the appellant. The learned single Judge considered the primary contention of the appellant that grant of permit is not justified in view of R.252(2) (iii) of AP Motor Vehicle Rules 1989. The said contention was duly considered by the learned single Judge holding that the application of the third respondent is only for modification of the route under section 80 (3) of the Act and since the variation was only 4.5 Kilometers there was no need to take permission for a second time. With the said findings of the learned single Judge, the writ petition is dismissed. 3. In this writ appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised the same contention and argued that without permission of the Transport Commissioner under Rule 252 (ii), permit cannot be granted to the third respondent. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Pleader who produced the records including original permits granted to the third respondent and also the learned counsel for the third respondent. 5. It is evident from the record that original permit was granted in 1989 on the existing town service route from Mandapeta to Tatapudi. The said grant was not objected to by the appellant. The said permit No.16/90 was valid upto 29-7-1985 and only an extension therefor is sought for in 1993 from Tatapudi to Kapileswarapuram. While the length of the route is 12.6 KMs and the length of the variation is only 4.5 KMs. As mentioned above, the permit was directed to be granted by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and accordingly the third respondent has been running the vehicle from 29-7-1985 to 28-7-2000. The latest renewal shows that the same is renewed from 30-7-2005 to 29-7-2010, which is not in dispute. The learned Government Pleader states that permit has been granted to the third respondent and he has been running the same and there is no overlapping over the extension of the route. It was found by State Transport Appellate Tribunal that proposed variation is un-served, un-notified and overlapping on existing route, is of no consequence. Further, variation does not amount to new permit in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. SHIVACHAND AMOLAK CHAND V/s. RTA [1], Apart from the hyper-technical objection raised by the third respondent, he has not shown any prejudice to the APSRTC on account of the third respondent running the vehicle on the original route as well as on the variation for which extension is granted. In the absence of any prejudice to the appellant-corporation, mere objecting the grant of permit to the third respondent was therefore not found justified by the learned single Judge. We find no reason to take a different view especially in view of the fact that permit to the third respondent is renewed upto 29-7-2010. 6. The writ appeal is therefore dismissed. However, the appellant is at liberty to object the third respondent’s permit when it comes for renewal in July 2010 if they so desire. If and when such objection is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders be passed. 7. Subject to the above, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. ____________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR. 06-4-2009. I s L s[1] ) AIR 1984 SC-9