S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THESE appeals which involve common questions of fact and law were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. They are directed against a common order date 10-6-2001 passed by a learned single judge of this Court in Writ Petition nos. 22056 and 22057 of 1994. FACTS

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are: The appellant - Corporation is third respondent in both the writ petitions. The writ petitions were filed by the third respondent herein to quash the order of the first respondent dated 12-2-1994 whereby and whereunder the order of the second respondent was confirmed.

( 3 ) THE, writ petitioner-third respondent was granted two pucca stage cartage permits on the inter-district route of Anantapur - madanapalli - via - Bathalapally, Kadiri, balasamudram Cross, Molakalacheruvu, somapalem Cross and Bathalapalem Cross extending lover a distance of 117 k. m. He applied for variation in the route. When his application was pending, the appellant- corporation published a draft scheme on 1-11-1974 under Section 68 (c) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939 ( the Act for brevity) covering the original route. The third respondent was, however, granted variation by order dated 7-3-1975. The draft scheme was approved by the Government by its order dated 3-6-1975 and the same was published on 4-6-1975. The permits granted to the third respondent were cancelled. The revisions preferred there against by the third respondent were allowed by the tribunal on 12-2-1976. The appellant filed writ Petition No. 2528 of 1976 against the said order and that writ petition was allowed, "the appeals and S. L. P. , preferred by the third respondent were also dismissed. The third respondent who had been given renewals of permits from time to time and had been operating two buses. After expiry of period of permits, the third respondent filed applications for renewal which were also rejected. Against the rejection of renewal applications, the third respondent filed appeals and the same were rejected. Hence the writ petitions.

( 4 ) THE learned single Judge in view of the provisions contained in Section 81 of the 1988 Act came to the conclusion that the power is available to the authority to reject the renewal only on the ground specified herein and no other provision empowers the authority to refuse renewal. The learned single Judge observed that if the authorities feel that the permit was issued contrary to the provisions of the Act, it would be open for them to initiate action to cancel or vary the permit. The learned single Judge found the orders of the State transport Appellate Tribunal and the authority illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 81 (4) (a) and (b) of the 1988 Act. Ultimately, the learned single judge set aside the orders of the authorities and directed them to renew the permits of the third respondent for a further period of five years in accordance with the rules. RELEVANT PROVISIONS

( 5 ) SECTION 81 of the 1988 Act, which deals with duration and renewal of permits and relevant for the present purpose, reads thus:1) A permit other than a temporary permit issued under section 87 or, a special permit issued under sub-section (8) of section 88 snail be effective [from the date of issuance or renewal thereof] for a period of five years: provided that where the permit is countersigned under sub-section (1) of section 88, such counter signature shall remain effective without renewal for such period so as to synchronise with the validity of the primary permit. (2) A permit may be renewed on an application made not less than fifteen days before the date of its expiry. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Regional Transport authority or the State Transport Authority as the case may be, entertain an application for the renewal of a permit after the last date specified in that subsection if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an applic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document