( 1 ) THE petitioner assails the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) dated 22-2-2002 in R. P. No. 19 of 2000 and the consequential order of the regional Transport Officer, Nellore, the fourth respondent herein, dated 6-5-2002. He also seeks a consequential direction to the fourth respondent to permit him to continue to operate his stage carriage bus bearing No. AP-26-U-5387 under permit No. PSP/2/n/2000 on the town service route Naidupet Bus Stand to gurramkonda Girijanapalem via Swarnamukhi Bridge.

( 2 ) THE facts are in a very narrow compass. The petitioner is a bus operator. He applied to the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), the second respondent herein, seeking a permit on the town service route from Naidupet Bus Stand to gurramkonda Girijanapalem via Swarnamukhi Bridge. The same was rejected by the second respondent on 13-12-1997. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the STAT under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( the act ). The same being A. P. No. 41 of 1998 was allowed by an order dated 8-9-1998 and the matter was remitted back to the second respondent for obtaining permission from the Transport Commissioner under Rule 258 (2) (ii) of the A. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ( the Rules ) as the permit the petitioner wanted for the route extended 8 k. m. beyond the municipal limits. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Transport Commissioner. The said official by proceedings in Rc. No. 1038/e3/99, dated 9-9-1999 sanctioned town service route.

( 3 ) THEREFORE, by resolution dated 26-10-1999, the second respondent granted a permit. The A. P. State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), the third respondent herein, approached the STAT by filing a revision petition under section 90 of the Act. The STAT by the impugned order dated 22-2-2002 set aside the order granting permit by the second respondent in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

( 4 ) THIS Court, while admitting the writ petition on 21-5-2002, passed interim order directing the respondents to permit the bus on the route until further orders after verifying as to whether the route in question and portion thereof is not served by any service either by APSRTC or any other agency and if the route is not served by any service, the petitioner be permitted to operate the bus. In obedience thereof, the fourth respondent issued proceedings dated 27-6-2002 holding that the petitioner is not entitled to operate the said vehicle on the route Naidupet Bus Stand to Gurramkonda Girijanapalem for the reason that a portion of the route in question is being served by APSRTC as well as private service. The petitioner, therefore, filed a miscellaneous application being w. P. M. P. No. 13698 of 2002 seeking clarification of the interim order dated 21-5-2002. Having regard to the proceedings dated 27-6-2002 issued by the fourth respondent declining permission to the petitioner to operate the bus, this Court declined to clarify the order dated 21-5-2002 and, however, directed that the case be heard as an urgent matter.

( 5 ) SRI V. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed before me a rough sketch of the route Naidupet Bus Stand to Gurramkonda Girijanapalem. He would contend that APSRTC is running two buses from Gudur to Vajravaripalem via gurramkonda Girijanapalem and one bus from Gudur to Karravallavolu via gurramkonda and Sagaturu and one bus from Vakadu to Venkatagiri via Gurramkonda girijanapalem and, therefore, there is an existing route from Naidupet Bus Stand to Gurramkonda Girijanapalem. The order passed by the STAT in the premise that there is no existing approved route is a misdirection in law. He would also urge that when the APSRTC is running a stage carriage bus on the routes covered by a scheme, the scheme would not come in the way of the RTA granting a town service permit. He placed reliance on the decision of a Full Bench of th