The main legal point established in the judgment is the finality of statutory decisions and the principle that a decision rendered by a tribunal/court in the absence of challenge becomes final and binding on both parties.

1. IN all these writ petitions, the same questions of law arises.

2. W. P. No. 4880 of 2001 is filed by one n. Vishwanathan, W. P. No. 4733 of 2001 by nisar ahmed and W. P. No. 5603 of 2001 by the Karnataka state transport corporation.

In all these writ petitions, petitioners have questioned the grant of counter-signature made by the Karnataka state transport authority, in favour of the second respondent-venkateshwara bus union in respect of the variations of the route "chikkaballapur to tirupathi" with an additional vehicle.

3. FACTS will be referred to with reference to W. P. No. 4880 of 2001.

4. THE second respondent-venkateshwara bus union is a stage carriage operator, operating a stage carriage service on the route "tirupathi to chikkaballapur'' under a permit granted by the transport authority of Andhra Pradesh under the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in pursuance of an inter-state agreement entered into between the state of Andhra Pradesh and karnataka.

He had sought for variation of the said permit under Section 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as it existed then by inclusion of an additional trip to be operated by an additional vehicle. The said application was granted by the transport authority of Andhra Pradesh on 16-4-1984 outside the inter-state agreement. The additional trip granted was not covered by the "agreement".

5. THE second respondent after the grant of variation filed an application for grant of counter-signature before the Karnataka state transport authority in respect of the additional trip to be operated by the additional vehicle.

6. THE state transport authority by its resolution dated 4/5-2-1994 in subject number 168 following the decision of the division bench of this court in the case of Karnataka state road transport corporation v venkateshan shetiy, wherein this court had held "fresh permits cannot be granted on nationalised routes and held that it would apply to additional trips as well", rejected the application on the ground that the counter-signature of the variation of the permit will have the effect of offending the kolar district nationalisation scheme.

The second respondent accepted the said decision by not challenging the same before the higher tribunal or before this court. Thus the said decision became final, binding and conclusive.

7. SUBSEQUENTLY after the coming into force of the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the second respondent got his earlier permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for operating the stage carriage permit on the route "tirupati to chikkaballapur" replaced by new permits under sub-section (4) of Section 80 of the new Motor Vehicles Act, which were accordingly replaced as permit No. 7-a/1962 and 7-b/1962 by Andhra Pradesh transport authorities for the period 19-7-1996 to 18-7-2001. After, having the permits so replaced, he again sought for counter- signature of the "additional trip with the additional vehicle" which was outside the inter-state agreement again before the state transport authority, karnataka.

8. WHEN the application for counter-signature was presented second time, the state transport authority relying on the decision of this court in r. Maheshwari and others v Karnataka state transport authority, Bangalore and others, wherein it was held that "it was permissible to grant variation by way of additional trip to be operated by an additional vehicle to the existing permit and such a variation granted did not amount to a new permit, the operation of which did not offend the kolar pocket scheme" granted the counter signature by its resolution dated 23-12-2001 vide Annexure-G. This resolution is challenged as illegal and without jurisdiction by the three writ petitioners as stated above.

Heard Sri krishna swamy, Sri prakash shetty, the learned counsels for the petitioner, Sri gupta, the learned counsel for the grantee- second respondent.

9. SEVERAL contentions were raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners who have a