Judgment : These revision petitions are directed against the order passed in Appeal No.985 of 1986 on the file of State Transport Appellate Tribunal Madras, in which the Appellate Tribunal had allowed the appeal reversing the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Periyar District at Erode in R.No 68221/B1/85, dated 25. 1986. 2. Short facts are: The respondents had filed application for variation of the permit conditions in respect of the route Kangeyam to Tiruchengode. The respondents were having six singles between Kangeyam and Tiruchengode. They wanted variation by having four singles, but having the route extended upto Salem. The revision petitioners had objected to the same. They are objectors Nos.1, 3, 13and 11 respectively. After hearing the objectors, the Regional Transport Authority, Periyar District at Erode had dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed appeal in Appeal No.985 of 1986 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras. After hearing the appellants and the objectors/the Appellate Tribunal had allowed the appeal, granting variation, as sought for by the appellants, before him and had directed the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to fix suitable timings. Aggrieved by the judgment the above objectors have come forward these revision petitions. 3. Mr.3adagopan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the variation allowed by the Appellate Tribunal was for a distance more then 24 kms. and it is not in accordance with provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules framed thereunder. Secondly, he would submit that the extended distance is disproportionate to the distance covered by the existing route and it would practically amount to a distinctively difference and new route and that cannot be granted under the guise of variation of the present route. The third submission is that the appellate tribunal does not have the power and jurisdiction to allow the appeal without countersignature and concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority, Salem. In this regard he would submit that the entire variation by way of extension of the existing route, lies within Salem District, inasmuch as the sector Tiruchengode to Salem is within the said District. 4. I have heard Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents, on the above aspects. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and the learned Advocate General. 4. I have heard Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents, on the above aspects. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and the learned Advocate General. I shall first take up the first submission made by Mr.Sadagopan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners. For considering this submission, the relevant section in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (which I shall hereinafter referred to as the "Act") which was in force at the time when the proceedings before the Regional Transport Authority and the appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal were heard. Sec.48(3)(xxi) reads as follows: "Sec.48(3) The Regional Transport Authority if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a service of stage carriages of a specified description or for one or more particular stage carriages, and may, subject to any rules that may be under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely: (xxi) That the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less then one month; .(a) Vary the conditions of the permit; .(b) attach to the permit further conditions; Provided that the conditions specified in pursuance of clause (1) shall not be varied so as to alter the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 kilometres, and any variation within such limits shall be made only after the Regional Transport Authority, is satisfied that such variation will serve the public convenience and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or any part thereof." 6. Sec.57(8) is also relevant and it reads as follows: Procedure in applying for and granting permits: "Sec.57(8): An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or, in the case of a stage carriage permit, by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum, or by altering the route covered by it, or in the case of a contract carriage permit or a public carrier’s permit, by increasing the number of vehicles covered by the permit, shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit; provided that it shall not be necessary so as to treat an application made by the holder of a carriage permit who provides the only service on any route or in any area to increase the frequency of the service so provided, without any increase in the number of vehicles. " Rule 208 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 is a relevant Rule and it reads as follows: "If the application is for the variation of the permit by the inclusion of an additional vehicle or vehicle or if the grant of variation would authorise transport facilities materially different from those authorized by the original permit the transport authority shall deal with the application as if it were an application for a permit. Provided that nothing contained in this rule shall prevent the transport authority or its Secretary, if authorised in this behalf, from summarily, rejecting an application for the variation of a stage carriage permit so as to provide transport facilities on a road which has been or is certified to be unfit for motor vehicular traffic by an officer not below the rank of Divisional Engineer of the Highways Department." A reading of the above section and Rule would show that so far as Sec.48(3)(xxi) is concerned, it specifies the variation of a route only upto 24 kms. So far as Sec.57(8) and Rule 208 are concerned they do not specify any such limit with regard to the distance of the route given by way of variation upto 24 kms. This factor is to be borne in mind while considering the first submission made by Mr.Sadagopan. In the instant case, the distance covered by the existing route is 67.4 kms. This factor is to be borne in mind while considering the first submission made by Mr.Sadagopan. In the instant case, the distance covered by the existing route is 67.4 kms. The variation sought for was for is extension from Tiruchengode to Salem, the distance between which is 44 kms. It is more than 24 kms. The question that falls for consideration is whether Sec.48(3)(xxi) is applicable or whether Sec.57(8) is applicable. The language of Sec.48(3) would clearly show that it would come into play in a case where the Regional Transport Authority takes suo motu action. Sec.57( 8) covers a case where variation is made on application. So when the Regional Transport Authority decides a matter on an application made under Sec.57(8), the restriction of 24 kms. is not applicable. 7. In C.R.P.No.1437 of 1976, one of the points considered by this Court was above and in the order dated 110. 1976, the learned Judge had referred to an earlier decision given in the case of Sri Rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd. v. Raman and Raman, in which, it was held, "another question that was debated before us was whether Rule 208 of T.N.M.V. Rules confers powers on a transport authority to vary permits or whether it is merely a procedural rule. It seems to us that as Act stand at present, Rule 208 does confer power on a transport Authority to vary all kinds of permits or conditions attached therein. This power is exercised on an application made in writing by the holder of the permit." After extracting the above, the learned Judge had held as follows: "It follows from the above reasoning that the TRA had the authority under Rule 208 to vary the permit and nothing contained in Sec.48(3)(xxi) limits its powers in respect of the distance covered the variation in the case." I am in total agreement with this view. In view of the above, this submission that variation granted by the appellate court was for more than 24 kms. and hence is not valid cannot be sustained. 8. Mr.Sadagopan would further submit that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is now in force, the limit of 24 kms. In view of the above, this submission that variation granted by the appellate court was for more than 24 kms. and hence is not valid cannot be sustained. 8. Mr.Sadagopan would further submit that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is now in force, the limit of 24 kms. is applicable both to a case where the Regional Transport Authority acts suo motu and where the permit holder moves by way of an application to the Regional Transport Authority and that since the new Act is now in force, those provisions are applicable and so this variation granting extension for more than 24 kms. is not valid, I shall first refer to the relevant sections in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which I shall hereinafter refer to as the new Act).The new Act has come into effect from 7. 1989. Sec.72(2)(xxii)is equivalent to Sec.48(3)(xxi)of the old Act. For considering this submission made by Mr.Sadagopan,Sec.72(2)(xxi)isrelevant, It reads as follows: "Sec.72: Grant of stage carriage permits: Sec.72(2) The Regional Transport Authority if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant a stage carriage permit, may grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description and may, subject to any rules that may be made under this attach to the permit any one more of the following conditions, namely-(xxii) The the Regional Transport Authority may after notice of not less than one month: .(a) vary the conditions of the permit: .(b) attach to the permit further conditions: Provided that the conditions specified in pursuance of clause (i) shall not be varied so as to alter the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 kms., and any variation within such limits shall be made only after the Regional Transport Authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or any part thereof." Sec.80 (3) and the second proviso to it are also relevant and they read as follows: "Sec. 80: Procedure in applying for and granting permits. (1) ..... (2)..... (1) ..... (2)..... .(3) An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route to increase the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vehicles. Provided further that: .(1) in the case of variations the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres: .(2) in the case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twenty four kilometres from the termini and any such variations or extension within such limits shall be made only after the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof." A reading of Secs.72(2) and 80(3) and the above provisos would show that both in a case where the Regional Transport Authority acts suo motu and in a case where the Regional Transport Authority acts on application given by the permit holder for variation, the variation by way of extension of the route should not exceed 24 kms. After the new Act came into force, variation of the route by way of an extension cannot exceed 24 kms. in either case. 9. In this case, the old Act was in force at the time when the Regional Transport Authority and State Transport Appellate Authority decided the matter before them. Now when these civil revision petitions came up for consideration, the new Act is in force. Mr.Sadagopan, learned counsel, would submit that the provisions of the new Act are applicable to these revision petition. Now when these civil revision petitions came up for consideration, the new Act is in force. Mr.Sadagopan, learned counsel, would submit that the provisions of the new Act are applicable to these revision petition. In this regard, he relied upon the order passed in Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited v. R.Krishnamoorthy, C.R.P.No.1647 of 1988, dated 14. 1990. In that case the Regional Transport Authority permitted the variation by way of extension to an extent of 24 kms. The appellate authority had given variation by way of extension upto 27 kms. Aggrieved by the same, the objector took up the matter to this Court. At the time of hearing of this revision the new Act had come into force. While, restoring the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Justice Bakthavatsalam had observed as follows: "Even otherwise taking note of the provisions of Scheme 1983, it has come into force in July, 1989 which allows the extension upto 24 kms. Only what the Regional Transport Authority has done is right in my view. It is open to this to take note of the intention of the Parliament though the enactment has come into force subsequently. As such, the order of the Regional Transport Authority cannot be said to be against the provisions of any law.“ 10. In Cheran Transport Corporation Limited, Coimbatore v. Ammab Bus Service, Pollachi, C.R.P.No.351 of 1989, dated 3. 1994), Raju, J. had considered C.R.P.No.1647 of 1988 supra, The learned Judge had held as follows: ”That apart Mr.Palani, learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice that the request involving extension for such unreasonable length would be against the scheme and object of grant of permits underlying the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and that as a matter of fact in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a specific provision has been incorporated in Sec.80(3) interdicting the variation involving an extension beyond 24 kms. The question would be as to whether the principles incorporated in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 applied to the case on hand and could be taken into consideration. A similar issue has arisen for consideration before this court in C.R.P.No.1647 of 1988. The question would be as to whether the principles incorporated in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 applied to the case on hand and could be taken into consideration. A similar issue has arisen for consideration before this court in C.R.P.No.1647 of 1988. “ Thereafter, the learned Judge had referred to the portion which I have extracted above in the said order passed by Bakthavatsalam, J. Then, Raju, J continues and holds as follows: ”Apart from applying the ratio of the decision of the learned Judge, I am of the view that every day the Transport operators are claiming and having the benefits of the new Act even in respect of the matters pending before courts which originated long before the coming into force of the new Act and the courts have been often granting relief on that basis. Taking into account the provisions of the new Act also imposing a ceiling on the length Upto which the extension can be secured under the guise of a variation which in my view is only a provision intended to curb an unhealthy practice and opposed to the grant for obligue purposes. “ In C.R.P.No.351 of 1989 supra, on the application made by the permit holder, the Regional Transport Authority partially granted the application for variation involving extension for a length of 20 kms. The permit holder took up the matter on appeal to the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted extension to a length of 40 kms. Aggrieved by that order, the objector took up the matter to this court and it was decided as above. 11. Mr.Sadagopan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, would submit that on the ratio of this ruling, it is to be held that the provisions of the new Act are to be applied to these revision petitions and consequently it is to be held that the variation by way of extension of more than 24 kms. Is not valid. Regarding this submission, the learned Advocate General, would submit that as per Sec.217 of the new Act, any right which had accrued under the old Act, cannot be disturbed by the new Act. He would also submit that in the above rulings, the facts are different and that Sec.219 of the new Act was not considered. Is not valid. Regarding this submission, the learned Advocate General, would submit that as per Sec.217 of the new Act, any right which had accrued under the old Act, cannot be disturbed by the new Act. He would also submit that in the above rulings, the facts are different and that Sec.219 of the new Act was not considered. Now the question that falls for consideration is as to whether in a case where application was filed and decided by the R.T. A. and by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and pending when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force shall be decided as per the provisions of the old Act, or as per the provisions of the new Act, 1988. To consider this question, Sec.217 of the new Act is relevant and the relevant portions need extraction and they are: ”217. Repeal and savings: (1) The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939) and any law corresponding to that Act in force in any State immediately before the commencement of this Act in that State (hereafter in this section referred to as the repealed enactments) are hereby repealed. .(2) Notwithstanding the repeal by Sub-sec.( 1) of the repealed enactments: (a) any notification, rule, regulation, order or notice issued, or any appointment or declaration made or exemption granted, or any confiscation made, or any penalty or fine imposed, any forfeiture, cancellation or any other thing done, or any other action taken under the repealed enactments, and inforce immediately before such commencement shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been issued, made granted, done or take under the corresponding provisions of this Act. .(b) any certificate of fitness or registration or licence or permit issued or granted under the repealed enactments shall continue to have effect after such commencement under the same conditions and for the same period as if this Act had not been passed. (c)...... (d)...... (e)..... .(f) ...... (3)..... (4)...... The mention of particular matter in this section shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of Sec.6 of General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), with regard to the effect of repeals.“ 12. To make the picture complete, I shall extract Sec.6(c) of the General Clauses Act, which is relevant for our purposes. (3)..... (4)...... The mention of particular matter in this section shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of Sec.6 of General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), with regard to the effect of repeals.“ 12. To make the picture complete, I shall extract Sec.6(c) of the General Clauses Act, which is relevant for our purposes. It reads as follows: ”6. Effect of repeal: When this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then unless a different intention appeals the repeal shall not — (a)...... (b)...... (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability required, accrued under any enactment so repealed; or (d)..... (e)..... and any such investigation legal proceeding or remedy be instituted continued of enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed. “ A conjoint reading of Sec.217(4) of the new Act and Sec.6(c) of the General Clauses Act, would show that if any person had acquired any right under the old Act, that will not be disturbed by the operation of the new Act. Taking that view of the matter, when the respondent had acquired the right under the provisions of the old Act viz., variation of the Rules by way of extension of the route from Tiruchengodu to Salem, that cannot be disturbed by virtue of the provisions of the Act. So the provision of the new Act cannot be applied to the pending proceedings to the deteriment of the successful party. 13. Mr.Sadagopan, would submit that Sec.217(2)(a) is applicable in this case, inasmuch as the orders by the R.T.A. and by the Appellate Authority were passed under the provisions of the old Act and only insofar as it is inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act, it shall be deemed to have been issued under the corresponding provisions of the New Act and this is not a case like that because with regard to variation by way of extension, the ceiling is fixed under the new Act, is up to an extent of 24 kms. whereas under the old act, in a case where an application was made for variation, there is no such limitation and so there is an inconsistent provision in the new Act and hence only the provisions OF the New Act would apply. In this regard, the learned Advocate General, would submit that Sec.72(2)(b) supra would apply, since what in effect has been given, by virtue of the order of the Appellate Authority, is the grant of permit, with variation under the repealed Act and so it shall continue to have effect after the commencement of the new Act. In my opinion, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority grants variations of the permit and so though it is an order, the effect of it is grant of a permit with variation and so it would fall within Sec.217(2)(b) of the new Act. Considering it from any angle, the provisions of the new Act are not applicable to proceedings initiated and decided by the R.T.A. and State Transport Appellate Authority under the provisions of the old Act. I am not able to accept the submission made by Mr. Sadagopan with regard to the rulings supra, for the reason that this point namely the impact of Sec.217 of the New Act, was not taken up for consideration and decided in those rulings. So this submission made by Mr.Sadagopan fails. 14. Now, I shall pass on to the second sub mission. The facts relevant are that the original length of the route was 67.4 kilometres. The length of the extension is 44 kilometres. It is to be considered whether this variation is disproportionate to the original permit and as such would virtually amount to a new route. In M/s.Shiv Chand Amolak Chand v. R. T.Authority, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 9, the facts are: The length of the original route was less than 20 kms. The variations sought for by extension of the original route was to an additional extent of 20 kms. In M/s.Shiv Chand Amolak Chand v. R. T.Authority, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 9, the facts are: The length of the original route was less than 20 kms. The variations sought for by extension of the original route was to an additional extent of 20 kms. In it, the Apex Court has laid as follows: ”It may be possible to say that where a totally new route is sought to be included by an application to vary the condition of a permit or the alteration of the route sought by such an application is of such a drastic character that it becomes substantially a new route, the application, though in form an application to vary the conditions of the permit would in effect and substance, be an application for grant of a new permit and in such a case, a view may conceivably be taken with some decree of plausibility that the number of stage carriages for which permits may be granted on such new route should first be determined under Sec.47, Sub-sec.(3) before the application to vary the conditions of the permit can be entertained. An applicant for a permit on a route which is not merely technically, but in truth and reality a different route, distinct from the original route, may not be permitted to defeat the provision enacted in Sec.47, Sub-sec.(3) by labelling his application as on for varying the conditions of the permit and in such a case, the procedure set out in Sec.47, Sub-sec.(3) may have to be complied with before the R.T.A. can consider and grant the application." In the instant case facts are different. The extension is 44 km. whereas the original route is 67.4 kms. The appellate authority had held that the variation sought for is not disproportionate to the original route. On the facts of this case, I am unable to accept the submission made by Mr.Sadagopan that it is disproportionate to the original permit. 15. Coming to the last submission of Mr.Sadagopan, he placed reliance on Sec.63 of the old Act. The appellate authority had held that the variation sought for is not disproportionate to the original route. On the facts of this case, I am unable to accept the submission made by Mr.Sadagopan that it is disproportionate to the original permit. 15. Coming to the last submission of Mr.Sadagopan, he placed reliance on Sec.63 of the old Act. The relevant portion of Sec.63(l) reads as follows: "63(1) Except as may be otherwise prescribed: A permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region, and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of the other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned." [Italics supplied] In this case, the operative portion of the judgment of the Appellate Authority reads as follows: "In the result, this appeal is allowed. The variation as sought for by the appellant before the Regional Transport Authority is granted. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority will fix suitable timings. In the instant case, the entire extension viz., between Tiruchengode to Salem lies within Salem District whereas the primary Authority is the Road Transport Authority of Periyar District, at Erode. So Mr.Sadagopan, would submit that without counter signature, as enjoined in Sec.63 such an order cannot be passed. The learned Advocate General would repel this contention by stating that this aspect of the case viz., getting the counter signature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other region viz., Salem pertains to the procedural aspect of the case and on that ground, the judgment of the Appellate Authority, cannot be held as bad in law. He would submit that by virtue of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the applicant has to apply to the Regional Transport Authority Salem and has to get necessary counter signature and till then the permit cannot be operated in the extended area. Rule 189-A of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 provides the procedure for the counter signature of the complementary authority. Rule 189-A of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 provides the procedure for the counter signature of the complementary authority. They read as follows: "189-A (1) A primary authority may with general or specific concurrence of a complementary authority and subject to such conditions, restrictions, restrictions or terms as may be required by the authority and agreed upon by the primary authority issued permit to be valid without counter signature in the complementary region. .(2) A complementary authority may revoke its concurrence, if the conditions or restrictions or terms required by it have not been imposed implemented or by the primary authority. Provided an opportunity for representation shall be given to the primary authority by the complementary authority before such revocation. .(3) Upon revocation of a concurrence under the Sub-rule (2) any permit issued by the primary authority shall, subject to such conditions as may be specified by the complementary authority which revoked the concurrence, remain effective in the complementary regions long as the permit is valid, as if the permit had been counter signed in that region. .(4) A concurrence entered into between a primary authority and a complementary authority may be dissolved by mutual agreement if conditions have since changed. (5) Any permit issued by a primary authority during the substance of a concurrence shall, notwithstanding the dissolution thereof under Sub-rule (e) remain effective in the complementary region so long as the permit is valid, as it had been counter-signed in that region. .(6) Nothing contained in Sub-rules (1) to (5) shall be deemed to preclude a complementary authority from countersigning any permit under Sec.63 of the Act, upon an application made to it in the prescribed manner. .(7) A primary authority granting a permit having validity outside its region may impose any one or both of the following conditions, namely: .(a) that the vehicle to which the permit relates shall normally be kept within the region of the primary authority, and .(b) that the vehicle shall not be offered for hire in the region of a complementary authority except in the course of its return journey to the primary region." In Muidanna v. R.T.Authority, A.I.R. 1967 A.P. 137, a similar question came up for consideration. In that case, the fourth point taken was that as the route lies within two Districts even in case of variation the procedure to be followed being that of the grant of new permit concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority within the meaning of Rule 209 of the Motor Vehicles Rules was a condition precedent for grant of permit and that as such, the concurrence was not obtained the order of variation is bad in law. After extracting Rule 209, which is taking to Rule 189-A of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, ultimately the learned Judges have held as follows: "The grant of permit by R.T.A., Anantapur at any rate is not bad for want of prior concurrence of R.T.A., Cuddapah. The 4th point also thus fails." With respect, I am in agreement with the view of the learned Judges of Andhra Pradesh High Court. So I am unable to accept with the third submission made by Mr. Sadagopan. 16. Since none of the submissions made by Mr. Sadagopan finds acceptance with me, the inevitable result is that all these civil revision petitions fail and shall stand dismissed. No costs.