( 1 ) THESE writ appeals are directed against the common judgment of the learned single Judge dated 3-12-1996 made in WP Nos. 1156, 1161, 1166 and 1170 of 1995. The appellant in all these appeals is the APSRTC and the 3rd respondent in the writ petitions.

( 2 ) THE necessary facts leading to the filing of the writ appeals be noted briefly as under: The contesting private respondent in each of these writ appeals filed applications before the Regional Transport Authority, Nalgonda (for short RTA), for grant of permits on town service routes in Kodada town. APSRTC, the appellant herein, also filed similar applications for grant of permits. The RTA clubbed all those applications, considered the same and granted permits to APSRTC as well as to the contesting private respondents by proceedings dated 30-3-1992. Aggrieved by the said order of the RTA, the appellant herein filed Revision Petition Nos. 102, 110, 111 and 112 of 1992 under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act ), before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal ), assailing the validity of the orders of the RTA granting permits in favour of the private respondents by contending that permits were granted in violation of Section 104 of the Act, that there is overlapping of more than 5 Kms. in the route and, therefore, the permits granted in favour of the private respondents are liable to be cancelled. The Tribunal, by its common order dated 4-1-1995, allowed the revision Petitions and cancelled the permits granted in favour of the private respondents. The private respondents, being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal dated 4-1-1995, filed the writ petitions. Since the facts and the questions of law that arose for consideration were common, the learned single Judge clubbed all the writ petitions and heard them together.

( 3 ) BEFORE the learned single Judge, on behalf of the petitioners, it was contended that the Tribunal, in entertaining the Revision Petitions filed by the APSRTC, acted without authority of law inasmuch as the Revision petitions filed by it are barred by limitation; the revision petitions thought to have been filed within 30 days from the date of the order whereas the revision petitions were admittedly filed on 20-11-1992, beyond the period of limitation. The order of the Tribunal was also assailed on merits.

( 4 ) ON behalf of APSRTC, it was contended that though it did not file the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petitions under Section 90 of the Act, since there was delay on the part of the RTA in furnishing copies of the order dated 30-3-1992, no exception can be taken to the action of the Tribunal in entertaining the revision petitions and on that count, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot step in and nullify the order made by the Tribunal which is otherwise valid and in accordance with law.

( 5 ) SINCE the question relating to the very maintainability of the revision petitions before the Tribunal was raised, the learned single Judge, after noticing the provisions of Section 90 of the Act and Rule 7 of the Rules framed thereunder, held that if a revision is presented beyond the time prescribed under the first proviso to Section 90 of the Act, filing of an application for condoning the delay is a must, and in the instant cases since the RTC did not admittedly make applications for condoning the delay, the revision petitions filed by the APSRTC are hit by law of limitation, and in that view of the matter, the order made by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the learned single Judge allowed all the writ petitions. Hence these writ appeals by the APSRTC.

( 6 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Sri Harinath, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Corporation, placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gorantla Ramachandra Rao v. Doppalapudi Seshiah, (1957) II An. WR 106, a