( 1 ) THESE two petitions can be disposed of by a, common order. The petitioner was a stage carriage operator on the route Mangala to Mysore, a distance of 69 miles, prior to the promulgamation of what is known as kanakapura scheme nationalising certain routes embraced by that scheme. Consequent upon the promulgation of the scheme his permit was curtailed on the portion of the route Kollegal to Mysore with effect from 1-12-1966. The result was that he was left with only a portion of the route lying between Mangala and Kollegal a distance of 10 miles only. Presumably because it was uneconomical. he did not operate on that portion of the route for nearly 2 years. Indeed when that permit was due to expire, he applied for renewal after giving an undertaking that he would operate on that portion of the route although the distance was uneconomically short. Inspite of such renewal he failed to operate. When the position stood thus, on 17-1-68 he applied for grant of variation of the route in such a way as to circumvent the nationalised portion. That application stood rejected on 4-5-1968. The petitioner appealed and it is stated that the appeal was pending, at the time when the permit was due to expire on 9-10-1970. He however applied for renewal of that permit well in time on 18-2-1970. The said application was rejeced by the RTA concerned on 17-11-1970. The petitioner appealed to the STAT and MEAT unsuccessfuly and the said appeals were dismissed on 6-1-1971 and 8-10-1971 respectively. In these petitions, the petitioner has challenged the said orders of the Tribunals. ( 2 ) WP. 2843 of 1971 is referable to the order rejecting the application for renewal and WP. 3080 of 1971 relates to the order refusing to grant the variation prayed for. The Tribunal after examining the question relating to the renewal of the permit and after concluding against the petitioner, rejected his request for variation of the route on that basis. It is however contended on behalf of the respondent that such rejection of the request of variation had also been based on the ground that there was no need, by the RTA concerned. It is however contended on behalf of the respondent that such rejection of the request of variation had also been based on the ground that there was no need, by the RTA concerned. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, it is urged thus: - that the ground relating to non-running of service in accordance with the permit granted, would not be available to the authorities while considering the question of renewal of a permit. It at all such a ground is sought to be relied on, the authorities could do so in accordance with the provisons of S. 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The argument is that if the proceedings had been instituted under Sec. 60 of the Act, the petitioner would have had an opportunity to show cause as to why his permit should not be cancelled or'suspended in accordance with the terms thereof. On a careful consideration of the matter I am unable to accept this contention. ( 4 ) BEFORE proceeding to deal with this contention, I should like to observe that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Arts. 226 or 227 of the Constitution. It is seen that after the curtailment of the, route covered by the permit held by the petitioner, pursuant to the coming into force of the Kanakapura scheme, the petitioner has not paid any attention to run the service on the remaining portion of the route between Mangala and Kollegal whatever the reason be. In regard to the reasons furnished by him there is a reference, to two versions in the proceedings of the Tribunals below. In the first instance before the RTA he had given out the reason specifically as the break down of the vehicle. At a later stage, during the proceedings before the higher authorities, he had put forth the reason that it was uneconomical to run a stage carriage over a short distance of 10 miles. ( 5 ) NEITHER of these reasons could be a good ground to stop the service for a period of over 2 years. This is not all. At a later stage, during the proceedings before the higher authorities, he had put forth the reason that it was uneconomical to run a stage carriage over a short distance of 10 miles. ( 5 ) NEITHER of these reasons could be a good ground to stop the service for a period of over 2 years. This is not all. Some time subsequent to 1-12-1966, the date on which the curtailment took effect, he applied for renewal of the said permit and secured the same after giving an undertaking as recorded by the Tribunals below, that he would run the service in fact between Mangala and Kollegal. Inspite of this undertaking he has not chosen to take advantage of the permit so renewed. While the position stood thus, the petitioner applied for renewal and grant of variation. If the Tribunals in these circumstances have refused to accede to his request, it was well within its discretion to do so. It is however mentioned on behalf of the petitioner now that the reference to the undertaking in the orders impugned are not to be found in writing and it was only a part of the argument urged on behalf of the contesting respondents. Assuming that is so, it would not make any difference to the conclusion arrived at by me that this is not a fit case where discretionary jurisdiction could be reasonably and justly invoked. ( 6 ) I now turn to the main contention urged on behalf of the petitioner. It is no doubt true that S. 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act in particular does not refer to any ground relatable to non-rendering of service, in accordance with the permit granted. What is to be remembered is that that section provides that even an applicaton for renewal must be treated as one for the grant of new permit. Once an application for renewal has to be dealt with as an application for a permit subject to certain preferences indicated under the very provision, it stands to reason that the past conduct of the operator would be a relevant ground to be taken into consideration, quite apart from the fact that it may not strictly fall within the relevant clauses of S. 47 governing the matters to be considered. In that view the renewal prayed for must be said to have been rejected properly by virtue of S. 58 of the Act. The next section relied on is S. 60 which provides for cancellation or suspension of permits in circumstances falling under one or the other of the clauses mentioned therein. It is plain from that provision that it refers to cases of cancellation or suspension of permits which are in force and thus excludes the application of the principle specified therein for the purpose of grant of renewal of a permit. It may be as contended on behalf of the petitioner that he might have had sufficient explanation, apart from the two mentioned by him earlier, to prevent any action being taken pursuant to that section. We are not at present concerned with any such situation. Hence these contentions cannot prevail. ( 7 ) IN the result, these petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .