R. Rajendra Babu, J.

Petitioner, who is operating his stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KBE 1911 on the route Fort Kochi-Eda Kochi, filed this petition for quashing Exts. P4 and P5 orders granting variation of the permit to the fourth respondent in respect of the vehicle KRF 7353.

2. The fourth respondent is operating his stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KRF 7353 on the route Kumbalangi-Mattacherry. He filed an application for variation of the permit so as to operate one trip as Kumbalangi-Kaloor (via) Menaka and another trip as Kumbalangi-Fort Kochi. The above application was rejected by the R.T.A., Ernakulam as per its proceedings dated 22.6.1999. The above order was challenged by the fourth respondent before the STAT in MVAA No. 498/99. By Ext. P4 order the STAT reversed the order of the RTA and directed to grant the variation and accordingly the RTA granted variation as per Ext. P5 order. The above orders are under challenge.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, fourth respondent and also the learned Government Pleader.

4. The application for variation of the permit filed by the fourth respondent was rejected by the R.T.A., Ernakulam as per Ext. P2 order, which reads:

"Heard. Curtailment from Thoppumpady to Mattancherry will adversely affect the existing facility and no circumstances as per R.145(6) exists. Hence rejected".

The above order was challenged by the fourth respondent before the S.T.A.T. The S.T.A.T. after considering the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, found that the variation was beneficial to the travelling public and as such the variation was allowable. It was observed in Ext. P4 order that the Motor Vehicle Inspector had reported that the proposed variation if allowed would be beneficial to the travelling public of Kumbalangi and Perumbadappu area and that the proposed curtailment portion was well served and would not affect the travelling public. The variation of the permit was granted by the Tribunal on the basis of the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector that the variation would not affect any existing convenience to the travelling public, but that was advantageous to them. When there is such a finding that there is advantage to the travelling public, the variation has to be allowed and I find no reasons to interfere with the above order of the Tribunal. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to assail the above finding of the Tribunal, no circumstances could be established to convince the above argument and as such Ext. P4 order of the Tribunal has to be upheld. On the basis of Ext. P4 order, the RTA reconsidered the application for variation of permit and granted the same by Ext. P5 order.

5. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that by the proposed variation, there would be four termini and as per law there should not be more than two termini. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the provisions of the statute as well as the Rules do not prohibit the issue of a permit having more than two termini and in fact the statute permit to have more than one route in a permit. Reliance was placed on Ss.70, 72 and 80 of the M.V. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). S.70 of the Act deals with application for grant of regular permit. S.70(1) reads:

"An application for a permit in respect of a stage carriage (in this Chapter referred to as a stage carriage permit) or as a reserve stage carriage shall, as far as may be, contain the following particulars, namely:-(a) the route or routes or the area or areas to which the application relates". S.72 relates to grant of

stage carriage permits. S.72(2) reads:

"The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description and may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely:

(i) that the vehicles shall be