JUDGMENT D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The petitioner is a Bus operator on a portion of the route in question, i.e. Betul to Khandwa. The petitioner objected to the grant of renewal of permit for the route in question and the change of timings proposed by regular permit holder Respondent No. 3. The RTA by the impugned order dated 9.7.1982 (Annexure-A) turned down the objection of the petitioner and granted renewal and change of timings in favour of the Respondent No. 3. 2. The petitioner then approached the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in appeal. The Appellate Tribunal by the impugned order dated 25.12.1983 upheld the objection of the petitioner with regard to the change of timings. The change of timings granted in favour of the respondent No. 3 were, therefore, set aside. So far as the objection to renewal is concerned, the Appellate Tribunal held that as the permit Was very old, it was not proper to interfere in the grant of renewal at the instance of the objector. 3. The learned, Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Appellate Tribunal in its order has recorded the fact that the respondent No. 3 had not maintained the route by not operating on part of it during night and, thus, he has no good operational record. The Appellate Tribunal also observed that the Respondent No. 3 did not apply to the concerned authority for being exempted from operating the route in the night as it was dangerous for travel due to dacoity affected area. The Appellate Tribunal in the order observed that because of above the permit holder instead of being punished would not have been rewarded by granting him change of timings. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that on the above observation made by the appellate Tribunal in its order the objection against renewal should have been allowed as there was bad performance and poor operational record due to non-maintenance of the route during night. Learned Counsel further argues that in not interfering in the matter of renewal, only because the permit was old, the Appellate Tribunal ignored the public interest. Reliance is placed on Patiala Bus (Sirhind) Pvt. Ltd. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 100, MA. Gurcharan Singh Baldev Singh v. Yashwant Singh and Ors. Learned Counsel further argues that in not interfering in the matter of renewal, only because the permit was old, the Appellate Tribunal ignored the public interest. Reliance is placed on Patiala Bus (Sirhind) Pvt. Ltd. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 100, MA. Gurcharan Singh Baldev Singh v. Yashwant Singh and Ors. 1960 MPLJ Short Note 101 N.L. Gupta v. Kishori and 1964 MPLJ Short Note 40 Hemandas and Bros. Bus Service v. S.T.A.A. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 points out that this petition was filed in the year 1984 and thereafter the permit of Respondent No. 3 continued to be renewed and there is no complaint now of any operation or non-maintenance of the route. The Respondent No. 3 is operating the route on the changed timings and also maintaining the route during night. It is also submitted that this being not a case of rival claimants, the question of comparing their performance on the route was not at all relevant. It is also submitted that the petitioner is on the route Hoshangabad to Khandwa and only party of route overlapses and the petitioner can have no serious grievance against the grant of renewal of permit to Respondent No. 3 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in the opinion of this Court, it would not be legal and equitable to set aside the renewal granted to Respondent No. 3 when the permit granted to him on the old timings had been continuously renewed upto the decision of this petition in 1994. 7. It is true that the non-maintenance of a portion of the route during night without seeking permission of the authorities or change of timings or permit for that reason was relevant ground which ought to have been considered by the S.T.A.T. even in the matter of renewal. But, in the instant case, none of the authorities has stated that the Respondent No. 3 had no good excuse for not operating the route in the night. The case of the Respondent No. 3 was that the area was dacoity affected and there were no passengers available for night journey. This statement of Respondent No. 3 had not at all been controverted and nothing had been said with regard to the same by the S.T.A.T. 8. The case of the Respondent No. 3 was that the area was dacoity affected and there were no passengers available for night journey. This statement of Respondent No. 3 had not at all been controverted and nothing had been said with regard to the same by the S.T.A.T. 8. The appellate Tribunal committed no error in allowing the appeal of the petitioner only with regard to the change of timings and upholding the renewal. This Court does not find this to be a fit case for interference in the matter of renewal of a permit granted to respondent No. 3 which has remained in operation for more than 10 years from the date of the impugned renewal. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed, but, without any order as to cost. The amount of security, if any, be refunded to the petitioner.