( 1 ) THESE two petitions can be disposed of together as they arise out of a common order made by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal in appeal numbers 615 and 1071 of l971 (MV ). The petitioner hereon, who is commen to both the petitions, has challenged the said order of the Revenue appellate Tribunal. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts are these: The petitioner was a permit holder on the route Mysore to Kollegal. The said permit was valid upto 18-7-1969. Consequent upon the coming into operation of what is known as Kanakapura scheme, the said permit stood cancelled on 1-12-1966. Presumably because- of the said scheme, and consequent upon the possibility of the permit being cancelled, the petitioner applied on 29-6-1966 for a grant of a permit on an alternative route thus avoiding the monopoly routes covered by the said scheme. The RTA of Mysore granted the permit by its resolution dt. 23-12-1966. The said route was concerned with Mysore to Bylur, an intra-district route. The said grant was challenged in appeals on behalf of the respondents. When the said appeals were pending the petitioner applied for a variation of the route by extension touching Bukkankere in another district. By another resolution, the RTA granted the variation prayed for on 5-9-1968. The said variations were also challenged in appeals. Indeed WP. 57 of 1972, concerned herein, has arisen as a result of such grant. In the meanwhile, the permit was also renewed on 5-1-70, as per the inter-regional route touching Bukkanakare. The appeals that were pending before the STAT against the original grant were disposed of on 5-10-1970. By the order made therein the original grant stood set aside. Subsequently, the other appeals pending against the grant of variation were also allowed on 13-10-1970. Against the said orders, second appeals were preferred to the MRAT, which on 30-12-1971 dismissed them. Hence these petitions. ( 3 ) THE first point urged on behalf of the petitioner is based on a memo, said to have been filed before the STAT, by the interested parties. The said memo appears to have been sent by post and it was dt. 14-8-1969. Subsequent to the filing of the memo, the STAT made the orders referred to earlier on 5-10-1970 and 13-10-1970. The said memo appears to have been sent by post and it was dt. 14-8-1969. Subsequent to the filing of the memo, the STAT made the orders referred to earlier on 5-10-1970 and 13-10-1970. The point of the argument is that the said memo has not been reasonably considered and the effect thereof ascertained by the STAT. and it has come to the conclusion that the said memo does not record an arrangement genuinely arrived at between the parties. Indeed the subscription of the signatures thereon has been doubted. It seems to me that the Tribunal was justified in the conclusion it did arrive at. This apart as observed by me earlier, the appeals themselves were disposed of long subsequent to the filing of such a memo. It is therefore to be presumed that the appeals were argued without reference to the impact of the memp. In such a situation, it is reasonable to infer that the parties had retracted from the memo, even on the assumption that it was genuine. Such retraction is permissible in the facts and circumstances of the case. I am not therefore inclined to agree with the submission of the petitioner on this point. ( 4 ) THE next point relates to the applicability of the provisions of sec. 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, to the facts of the case. Indeed the orders of the Tribunals are based on this circumstance, almost exclusively. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Obulswami Naidu's case AIR. 1969 SC. 1130. it is found that, in the case of an intra-regional route, it was the duty of the RTA tp haye determined the number of services to be permitted on any route thrown upon for operation by the stage carriage operators. This decision has been explained in another decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State Transport Authority, Madras AIR. 1970 SC. 1542. By that decision, the Supreme Court held that the compliance with S. 47 (3) of the motor Vehicles Act would be necessary only in the case of an intraregional. route and not in regard to inter regional or inter-State routes. The argument is that while the appeals were pending before the STAT against the original grant, the permit stood varied, extending the route to Bukkanakere in another district, thus the permit stood converted into an inter-regional one. route and not in regard to inter regional or inter-State routes. The argument is that while the appeals were pending before the STAT against the original grant, the permit stood varied, extending the route to Bukkanakere in another district, thus the permit stood converted into an inter-regional one. On the date the STAT examined the appeals against the original grant, the permit had stood converted into an inter-regional one. In that view the ground relied on by the Tribunals, particularly the stat, had become unavailable and therefore could not have been made the basis for setting aside the said grant. I am of the view that this argument cannot prevail. It is seen that the variation in question had been effected pursuant to the provision of sub-sec. (8) of S. 57 of the Motor vehicles Act. On a plain reading of that provision, it would be clear what the authority was competent to do was to just after the condition of the permit in relation to the route covered by it. This is what has been done by the authorities concerned in the instant case. This alteration would not, in my opinion haye the effect of effacing the identity of the original permit once this position is reached, if the original permit is interfered with in any manner, the subsequent variation, which is nothing but an appendage to the original grant must also fall to the ground. If an authority is needed for the purpose, it is sufficient to refer to the case before the supreme Court in V C. K. Bus Service Ltd, v. Regional Transport Authority AIR. 1957 SC. 489 it is no doubt true that the facts of that case were that when an original grant had been challenged, any subsequent renewal thereof would not have the effect of converting such a renewed permit into a new one. On those facts the Supreme Court held that once the original grant failed, the subsequent renewal would be of no effect, for the simple reason that the renewed permit was a continuation of the original permit. In my view the enunciation therein is equally applicable to the facts of the instant case. I have earlier concluded that any variation granted under sub-sec. (8) of S. 57 is nothing but an extension of the original permit. In my view the enunciation therein is equally applicable to the facts of the instant case. I have earlier concluded that any variation granted under sub-sec. (8) of S. 57 is nothing but an extension of the original permit. I am therefore of the view that this contention ought not also to be allowed to prevail. ( 5 ) THE next contention is that the application filed by the petitioner must be treated as one under S. 68g (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. If it is so treated, it would be clear that Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act would not be attracted, and in that view S. 47 (3) cannot afford a basis for interfering with the grant made in favour of the petitioner. It is also relevant to note that the grant in favour of the petitioner had been on a what may be described as a non-nationalised route, in that it is not covered by the Kanakapura scheme of nationalisation of transport. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision of the High court of Allahabad in Regional Transport Authority, Gorakpur v. Sri kashi Prasad Gupta AIR. 1961 All. 214. It is no doubt true that the said decision lays down that in the case of a grant sought for under S. 68g of the Motor vehicles Act, on an alternative route not covered by any scheme for nationalisation had to be dealt with without reference to Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Art. of which S. 47 (3) is a part. That case in mv opinion is clearlv distinguishable. S. 68g clearly contemplates the grant of an alternative route on the basis of an offer made by a STAT or the RTA, provided the same has been accented by. the operator. No such situation prevail in the present case. In the instant case the petitioner applied on his own for the grant of a permit on a route which according to him must be treated as an alternative route in the context, of the scheme of nationalisation. the operator. No such situation prevail in the present case. In the instant case the petitioner applied on his own for the grant of a permit on a route which according to him must be treated as an alternative route in the context, of the scheme of nationalisation. In the absence of a compact as aforementioned such an application must be treated as a mere application for grant of a permit notwithstanding the reference therein that the applicant had been asking for a route by wav of an plternative In the route which had been effected by the said Kanakapura scheme. In this view the decision in question is inapplicable. Hence this contention also must fail. ( 6 ) FOR the above repsons these petitions deserve to fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .