THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.23934 OF 2003 BETWEEN: 1. K. Shiva Sankaraiah S/o. Late K. Venkatesaiah died per L.R. 2. Smt. K. Parvathamma W/o.Late Shiva Shankaraiah, R/o.D.No.4- 401, Madakasira, Anantapur District. …. PETITIONERS And State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, rep. by its Secretary. …. RESPONDENT Counsel for petitioners: Sri O. Manohar Reddy Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Transport The Court made the following order: ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed to declare the Memo No.4440/B1/89, dated 23.09.2003 issued by the Secretary, State Transport Authority, A.P., to the petitioner advising him to file an application for grant of variation of conditions of permit by way of two additional singles with additional vehicle. 2. Originally the petitioner K. Shiva Sankaraiah was the transferee permit holder from Smt. Achamma. Smt. Achamma held stage carriage permit No.40/49 on the interstate route Sira to Bukkapatnam. Smt. Achamma sought variation of condition of the said permit by way of increase of two single trips with additional vehicle and the same was granted by the State Transport Authority by resolution in Rc.No.10665/B1/81, Item No.19, dated 23.09.1985. On being challenged by some existing operators, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside the grant and the said order was also confirmed by this Court. The original permit holder approached the Apex Court by way of SLP.(C).No.13464/88. The said SLP was dismissed by order dated 24.07.2000 as the draft sent proposing to nationalize the said route had lapsed by then. In a subsequent review petition R.P.No.1049/2000, the Apex Court by order dated 4.05.2001 clarified that if any application has been made by the petitioner the same would be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. 3. It appears that after disposal of SLP, the original owner submitted a representation to consider the request for grant of variation of conditions of permit. On the said representation, the respondent has issued the impugned Memo calling upon the petitioner to file an application. It is against the said Memo the present writ petition has been filed. 4. As per the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an application for grant of variation of conditions of permit should be treated as an application for grant of fresh permit. 5. Having regard to the nature of relief sought for by the petitioner seeking additional singles with additional vehicle, the impugned Memo directing the petitioner to submit an application cannot be said to be illegal. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. If the petitioner desire to pursue for grant of variations of conditions of permit, she is at liberty to file an application as per the impugned Memo. 6. The Writ Petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 3rd November, 2010 Js.