( 1 ) THE petitioner is assailing the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in r. No. 1259/01/93 dated: 26-7-1996 granting temporary permit to the 2nd respondent on the Inter-state route Hindupur Railway station to Mydugolan.

( 2 ) THE petitioner submits that she is having a pucca stage carriage permit on town service route Hindupur Municipal Bus stand to Kanchisamudram with a distance of 19. 2 K. Ms. She is running the bus with l2 singles per day. While so, the 2nd respondent filed two applications, one for grant of pucca stage carriage permit and the other for temporary permit on the Inter-state route hindupur to Mydugolan. The distance is 28 k. Ms, out of which 24. 3 K. ms are in A. P. State and 3. 7 K. ms is in Karnataka State. It has a common sector for a distance of 17 k. Ms on the petitioner s route. The 1st respondent rejected the applications on 22-7-1995. Against the said proceedings, the 2nd respondent filed two appeals i. e. Appeal Nos. 165/95 and 166/95 relating to rejection for grant of temporary permit and permanent permit respectively. The State transport Appellate Tribunal by orders dated: 2-7-1996 remanded the matter for fresh consideration. There after the petitioner filed representation on 25-7-1996 to grant hearing as she was objecting the application. However, the 1 st respondent passed orders on 26-7-1996 granting temporary permit on the above route to the 2nd respondent pending application for pucca permit. The said proceedings are assailed before this court.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons assigned for grant of temporary permit are wholly illegal and untenable. The 1 st respondent has no power to grant temporary permit as no delegation was made in his favour. Further, the 1st respondent having rejected the application in his proceedings dated: 22-7-1995 ought not to have granted temporary permit. The temporary permit should be granted only under the circumstances mentioned under section 87 of the Act, and none of the ingredients are present in the instant case. Further, the route of Hindupur Railway Station to Mydugolan is an Inter-state and there is no reciprocal agreement between the State of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka and he has no power to grant or create a new route, as the route is not formulated by the government of Andhra Pradesh as required under Section 63 (3) (ca) of M. V. Act. Further, the route is overlap ing the notified route hindupur to Kadiri published in G. O. Ms. No. 160 dated: 4-3-1978.

( 4 ) IN the counter filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, it is submitted that when an application was originally filed for stage carriage permit on the inter-state route, the authorities rejected on 22-7-1995 on the ground that the route overlaps the notified route published in G. O. Ms. No. 160, dated: 4-3-1978 to an extent of 0. 2. K. Ms. In appeal filed by him before the State transport Appellate Tribunal, he sought for deletingtheportion fromhindupurto Railway station a distance of 2. 4 K. Ms which incjudes the overlaping area 0. 2 KMs. Therefore the State Transport Appellate tribunal remanded the matter to the secretary, State Transport Authority to consider the application for the modified route and the same was considered and temporary permit was granted on 26-7-1996. It is also contended that the petitioner holds the permit on town service route and she is not affected in any manner and that she has no locus standi to question the temporary permit granted to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved party. More over the A. P. S. R. T. C. which is a party before the S. T. A. did not challenge the proceedings. With regard to the delegation, it is stated that all the powers were delegated to the R. T. A. and other officers except power under Sections 68 (3) (a), 68 (3) (c), 72 (1) and 67 of M. V. Act. Therefore, the said contention is not tenable. With regard to the inter-state route, it is stated that Section 88