ORDER.-This revision is directed against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, made in Appeal No. 27 of 1975 reversing the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Chelamandalam at Tiruchirapalli dated 30th November, 1974. As item No. 8, in his meeting the following subject was taken up for consideration by the Regional Transport Authority, Chelamandalam at Tiruchirapalli on 30th November, 1974, the application of Thiru M. Mariappa Chettiar, Proprietor, Sri Thiyagarajan Transports, Kumbakonam, for the extension of the route Kumbakonam to Pudukudy via Thanjavur as Kumbakonam to Tiruchirapalli via Thanjavur and Pudukudy involving curtailment of two singles from Kumbakonam to Thanjavur and grant of two additional singles from Thanjavur to Pudukudy in respect of his bus MDS 4509 so as to ply to the timings already notified. A representation was also received as objector by one K. Chinnapappu, who is the revision petitioner herein. The question arose as to the distance of the route. The distance from the central point to central point alone should be taken into account was what was argued on behalf of the respondent herein. As against this, it was contended that the actual distance from Meenakshi Rice Mill to zero point is 24.2 kms., which is in excess of the maximum permitted distance by 2 kms., while the exact distance from the terminating point at Pudukudi viz., bye-pass road to Trichy bus stand was 29 kms. In view of this, the Regional Transport Authority rejected the application. On. appeal the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, was of the view that it should not be calculated from central point to central point. On the contrary the distance must be calculated from zero point. In support of this reasoning, it relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in N. M. Palanichamy v. (1) The Additional State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, (2) Chridopher Transports, Tuticorin,Respondents in W.P.No. 114/71. (1) The Lion Automobile Service Company, (2) The Additional State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, Respondents in W.P.No. 115/71. .2 kilometres in excess, which was too negligible, had to be ignored in W.P. No. 926 of 1967. Hence, the matter was allowed and for fresh consideration on merits it was remitted to the Regional Transport Authority. 2. Mr. (1) The Lion Automobile Service Company, (2) The Additional State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, Respondents in W.P.No. 115/71. .2 kilometres in excess, which was too negligible, had to be ignored in W.P. No. 926 of 1967. Hence, the matter was allowed and for fresh consideration on merits it was remitted to the Regional Transport Authority. 2. Mr. N.G.Krishna Iyengar, the learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the definition of “road length” occurring under rule 3 (nn) of the Rules and also the definition of “route” as occurring under section 2 (28-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and then says that the bus does not travel through the zero point and that it is not proper for any authority to notice artificial or imaginary consideration of zero point and then says that the distance must be calculated from only zero point. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that admittedly all the buses ply only through the bye-pass road. Therefore, the order of the appellate authority is incorrect and, therefore, will have to be revised. As against this, Mr.M.N. Rangachari points out that the decision in N. M. Palanichamy v. (1) The Additional State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, (2) Chridopher Transports, Tuticorin, (1) The Lion Automobile Service Co., (2) The Additional State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras,which was relied on by the State Transports Appellate Tribunal, Madras, is squarely in point and in any case it will not only be salutary, but highly desirable to adopt a uniform standard and calculate the distance for the purpose of conferment of jurisdiction only from zero point. Neither the definition of “route” occurring in section 2 (28-A) of the Motor Vehicles nor the definition “road length” occurring in rule 3 (nn) of the Rules would militate against such a construction. Calculated in this manner, the distance is only 24.2 kilometres and the excess of 2 kilometres could validly be ignored. Therefore, no exception should be taken to the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras. 3. On a careful consideration of the above arguments, I am of the view that there is great substance and justice in what the learned counsel for the respondent contends. Therefore, no exception should be taken to the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras. 3. On a careful consideration of the above arguments, I am of the view that there is great substance and justice in what the learned counsel for the respondent contends. Section 2 (28-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, defines the “route” as meaning a line of travel which specified the high way which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another. The definition of “Road length” is contained under rule 3 (nn) which means the actual distance of any road as a physical track. Neither of these definitions could in any way affect the construction with regard to the calculation of the distance for the conferment of jurisdiction upon the authority is from zero point. It is not necessary that actually the bus should travel through that route. Looked at this point of view, there is no question of imaginary or artificial consideration being imported under such construction. On the contrary, it appears to be an eminent rule of construction, which will obviate many difficulties. For instance in a city or town if there are more than one bus stand concerning the same route and if it is to be calculated from terminus to terminus as per the route, on which the bus travels, certainly the distance may vary. One bus stop may lie very near, while the other may lie in the interior of the city or town, as the case may be. Therefore, the calculation from zero point is a salutary principle which has to be adopted in this case. The ratio of Writ Appeal Nos. 114 and 115 of 1971 though rendered prior to the amendment will still hold good notwithstanding the amendment of the law. 4. In the instant case, the State Transport Appellate Authority himself has in fact found that the distance is 24.2 kilometers. .2 kilometre is too negligible distance. That has rightly to be ignored as laid down in. M/s A.Rt. Bus Service (P) Limited, Jayankondam v. M/s. Natesan. Transport (P.) Limited, Kumbakonam and 3 others. 5. In the result, I see absolutely no warrant for interference. Accordingly the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.