JUDGMENT J.K. Tandon, J. - This is petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against an order of the State Transport Authority by which on appeal it extended the route, of permit No. 130 granted to the petitioner from Kachla to Nagaria. The facts may briefly be stated thus. 2. The petitioner held permit no. 130 for the route Badaun to Kasganj. Later, however, this permit was curtailed and was restricted up to Kachla only, which is a place on the route between Badaun and Kasganj. Sometime later the petitioner applied for extension of the permit to Kasganj once again. The Regional Transport Authority did not accede to his request but the State Transport Authority extended it upto Nagaria which is a place between Kachla and Kasganj. The petitioner not being satisfied with the above order of the State Transport Authority has moved this petition for quashing the said order. 3. The only ground that has been urged by Sri Fanthom appearing for the petitioner is that the State Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to grant the extension of the route upto Nagaria only when the prayer of the petitioner was for extension upto Kasganj. 4. Rule 69 of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules deals with the question of variation of permits. The present case is for the variation of the permit which as might have been noticed was upto Kachla only. Both parties therefore admit that Rule 69 is applicable. What the petitioner has nevertheless argued is that the Regional Transport Authority and on appeal the State Transport Authority had no power to grant extension for a part of the distance only the authority belonging either to the Regional Transport Authority or to the State Transport Authority was to grant extension for the full distance or to refuse entirely. Rule 69 under which the power of variation belongs does not contemplate any such restriction on the power of the State Transport Authority. On the contrary, the Regional Transport Authority and likewise the State Transport Authority on appeal have discretion to grant the application for variation as may be considered by it appropriate. I am unable to see anything in Rule 69 to compel these authorities to the granting or refusing of the prayer in entirety. In my opinion therefore there is no force in this petition. It therefore is dismissed.