The grant of variation of a permit to an operator, covered by the proviso to S. 68-F(1-D), would not amount to granting a new permit or the renewal of a permit falling outside the terms of S. 68-F(1D). An application for variation of the conditions of a permit under S. 57(8) is to be treated as an application for a new permit only for the purpose of applying the procedure prescribed by sub-Ss. (3) to (7) of S. 57, and not for the purpose of changing the character of the permit into a fresh or new permit.

1. The two revisions have been filed by Messrs. Pandian Roadways Corporation, Madurai, to challenge the correctness of two orders passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal granting extension of route and reduction of trips to two private operators operating their stage-carriages on routes covered by a Draft Scheme published under S 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act. As common questions of law are involved, the two revisions were heard together and common arguments were advanced on the questions of law.

2. In C.R.P. No. 3117 of 1984, the respondent who was plying his stage-carriage, MDC-697 on the route Butlagundu to Checkanurani, via. Viruveedu and Usilam-patti, had applied for variation as under:—

(1) Extension of the route from Checkanurani to Madurai, and

(2) Reduction of trips between Butlagundu and Usilampatti touching Rajathanikottai.

The Regional Transport Authority, before whom the application was made, issued notifications and heard representations, both for and against and then granted the variation as prayed for. The petitioner, who was Objector No. 15, preferred an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. But, in the said appeal he canvassed the correctness of only one of the two variations that had been granted, viz. , extension of the route from Checkanurani to Madurai. On facts, the Appellate Tribunal found that there was need and justification for the extension. On the legal objection that Madurai to Kumili is a draft scheme route and the scheme eliminates private operators operating their stage carriages for 16 kilometres and above and therefore the grant of extension is not valid, the Tribunal held that “there is no bar for the grant of variation of conditions of permit which the permit-holder is already holding”. By reason of such a finding, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and hence the revision.

3. In C.R.P. No. 3118 of 1984 the respondent who was operating a stage-carriage TNR-3794 on the route Elayirampannai to Madurai, via., Sathur, Virudhunagar, Mallanginar, Kalkurichi and Kariapatti with independent shuttle trips bet ween Sathur and Melakottai Vilakku and another independent shuttle trip between Melakottai Vilakku and Elayirampannai, sought variation in the modified form, as against the original prayer as under:

(1) Deviation of the route from Melakottai Vilakku to Madurai by means of four singles;

(2) Grant of two additional singles between Virudhunagar and Melakottai Vilakku;

(3) Curtailment of the route between Kariapatti and Madurai; and

(4) Reduction of two singles between Virudhu nagar and Kariapatti.

The Regional Transport Authority, after making a notification and hearing the representations, granted the variation prayed for. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Tribunal and in the appeal, only two of the four variations were challenged, viz. , the deviation of the route from Melakottai Vilakku to Madurai and grant of two additional singles between Virudhunagar and Melakottai Vilakku. In this case also, the Appellate Tribunal found justification tin facts for permitting the deviation and the running of the two additional singles. Dealing with the legal objections that the variations relate to a Draft Scheme route, viz.. Madurai to Nagercoil and hence variations are prescribed by S. 68-F(1D) and S. 47(3). the Tribunal has held that the deviation will not constitute a new route as the distance involved is only 23.1. kilometres and furthermore, there is no scope for contending that the grant of variations would amount to granting of a new permit. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and against that order the present revision has been filed.

4. Taking up the first case, it was argued that the original route Butlagundu to Usilampatti was not covered by any Scheme, but the extension of the route from Checkanurani to Madurai will fall within the Draft Scheme route Kumili to Madurai and as such, the grant of variation is forbidden by S. 68-F (1D) of the Motor Veh