( 1 ) THE petitioner is a holder of pucca stage carriage permit on inter-State route from srikakulam to Parlakimundi via narsannapeta, Sarvakota and Pathapatnam. She filed an application before the State transport Authority (STA), the second respondent herein, for grant of additional shuttle trip from Srikakulam to Sarvakota and curtailment of shuttle trip from tallasamudram to Narasannapeta. As the said application was not considered, she filed a writ petition being W. P. No. 6149 of 1996. By an order dated 26-3-1996, this Court directed the second respondent to dispose of the said application. The second respondent, in its meeting held on 6-2-1999 considered the said application vide item No. 13 and resolved to reject the same. The petitioner approached the State Transport Appellate tribunal (STAT), the first respondent herein, by filing a revision petition under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( the Act ). The STAT by an order dated 15-12-2000 made in R. P. No. 61 of 1999 affirmed the orders of the STA. The order of the STAT is assailed in this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari and also for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant the trips as applied for by the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE A. P. State Road Transport corporation (APSRTC), the third respondent herein, filed a counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is the case of the third respondent that grant of new permit on the route is prohibited by an approved and notified scheme and the same cannot be granted. The grant of permit to private operators on inter-State route from srikakulam to Parlakimundi is prohibited by three schemes which are overlapping, namely, Srikakulam to Pathapatnam (G. O. Ms. No. 1076/87); Srikakulam to chapra (G. O. Ms. No. 584/78); and Tekkali to pathapatnam (G. O. Ms. No. 1147/87 ). The petitioner is therefore, not entitled for any variation either for grant of additional shuttle trips or curtailment of shuttle trip. The existence of inter-State agreement is condition precedent for grant of permit and the inter-State permit can be granted only to the extent specified therein. In the inter-State agreement covering inter-State route from srikakulam to Parlakimundi, there is a provision for three round trips only and that the said provision has already been exhausted. If the variation sought for by the petitioner is ordered, it would amount to violation of the said agreement. Inter-State agreement does not provide for variation and, therefore, the orders passed by the second respondent and confirmed by the first respondent are sustainable.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, sri T. Venkataramana, submits that the shuttle trip from Srikakulam to Sarvakota sought for by the petitioner does not result in variation of pucca stage carriage permit on the inter-State route from Srikakulam to parlakimundi and, therefore, grant of such variation does not amount to grant of fresh permit and, therefore, the existing scheme does not prohibit grant of such variation. He placed reliance on the decisions of this Court as well as the Supreme Court in K. S. R. T. Corporation v. B. A. Jayaram, K. S. R. T. Corporation v. K. S. T. Authority, Bangalore, r. Raghuram v. P. Jayarama Naidu, k. Pamanna v. The S. T. A. T. L. Raghuraman v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A. P. , hyderabad.

( 4 ) PER contra, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, submits that in the guise of seeking variation for grant of shuttle trips from Srikakulam to sarvakota, the pentioner is asking for a permit on a differed route and, therefore, the same is not permissible as per the notified/approved schemes in force. The route from Srikakulam to Sarvakota is within the State of Andhra Pradesh and, therefore, the RTA is competent to grant permit from Srikakulam to Sarvakota. As the route is overlapping the approved scheme, in view of the prohibition, the variation cannot be granted. The learned standing Counsel place