Judgment :- K.A.Swami, C.J. All these writ petitions are filed by the various Transport Corporations challenging the validity of Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules, 1995, published under G.O.Ms. No.718, Home (Tr.III), dated 18th May, 1995. 2. There are certain petitions filed by some private operators to implead themselves as party - respondents in some of the writ petitions. As they are private operators and are interested in the subject-matter of these writ petitions, they are impleaded as party-respondents and the petitions for impleading them are allowed. 3. At the outset, the learned standing Counsel for the Transport Corporations submits that as the variations of conditions of permit granted to various private operators overlapping the notified routes have been annulled by Sec.3 of Act No.19 of 1996 and Sec.4 thereof gives them the liberty to make an application for variation. In such an event, the Corporation would be entitled to object to it. Therefore, it is not the stage at which the Corporation need challenge the validity of the Rules. Of course, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-private operators submits that Sec.4 of the Act No.19 of 1996 gives them the right to seek restoration of the variations, which have been annulled under Sec.3 of Act No.19 of 1996, if it is considered by the Granting Authority that such a variation is in public interest. Sec.4 of Act 19 of 1996 reads thus: “4. Notwithstanding anything contained in Sec.3, the Regional Transport Authority may, on an application, if, in any exceptional case, he is of the opinion that any variation of the conditions of permit of a stage carriage which stands cancelled under Sec.3, did not result in undue hardship or suffering to the travelling public, he may restore such variation and such variation shall be deemed to be a variation made under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.6 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992.” 4. We must point out that the Section is not happily worded. When by the legislative decree as contained in Sec.3 of Act 19 of 1996, the variations granted have been annulled, there is no question of restoration. It would be a question of making a fresh application for variation and in such an event, the Granting Authority will have to consider the same in accordance with law. When by the legislative decree as contained in Sec.3 of Act 19 of 1996, the variations granted have been annulled, there is no question of restoration. It would be a question of making a fresh application for variation and in such an event, the Granting Authority will have to consider the same in accordance with law. In the event the Granting Authority comes to the conclusion that the variation sought for should be granted, it results in restoration of the variation which has been annulled. It is in this sense the word ‘restoration’ has been used in Sec.4 of the Act 19 of 1996 and not in any other sense. That means, the application has to be filled by an operator for grant of variation, and it will have to undergo all the procedures that have to be undergone grant of permit. It is open to the transport corporation to object, to it, if it overleaps the notified route. With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of in the light of the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner Transport Corporation. Liberty is reserved to the Transport Corporations to oppose and to challenge the grant of variation in accordance with law. No costs. 5. W.M.P. Nos.l 1353, 18723 and 19507 of 1996 to implead parties are allowed. All the other W.M.Ps. are dismissed.