Judgement SANKARASUBBAN, J.:- W.A. No. 1972 of 1996 is filed by the first respondent against the judgment in O.P. No. 731 of 1993. W.A. Nos. 1974/96, 1976/96 and 246/97 are filed by the respondents against the judgment in O.P. No. 1780 of 1993. The above two original petitions, 731/93 and 1780/93 were disposed of along with other connected O.Ps. by a common judgment. 2. Both the original petitions spring from the order of the R.T.A. Idukki. The appellants are the existing operators. They have obtained permits to operate their services as ordinary services. The permit describes the number of stops, the time taken for covering the route etc. The proceedings before the R.T.A., Idukki arose when the appellants applied for converting their permits from ordinary service to Fast Passenger Service. That amounts to variations of the conditions in the permit. 3. The R.T.A. refused to accede to the request of the appellants to convert their service into Fast Passenger Service. According to the R.T.A., it was after taking into consideration the public interest that permit was granted to operate the service as ordinary service. If the permits are converted into Fast Passenger Service, the number of stops will be reduced and the minimum charge will be enhanced. Thus, the conversion will ultimately be against the interest of short distance passengers as well as students. The operators took up the matter in appeal before the S.T.A.T. The Appellate Tribunal took note of the fact that the R.T.A. is granting fresh permits to run the services as Fast Passenger Services. Further, according to the S.T.A.T., the routes covered by the appellants are long routes and it will be tedious for the long distance passengers if the bus stops at number of stoppages and it will be overcrowded. Thus it directed the R.T.A. to convert the service as Fast Passenger Service. The State Government challenged the matter before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge, after considering the various aspects, allowed the original petitions and held that the conversion of the service as Fast Passenger Service will be against public interest. It is against the above judgment, the present appeals are filed. 4. On behalf of the appellants in connected appeals, different counsel appeared. The learned single Judge, after considering the various aspects, allowed the original petitions and held that the conversion of the service as Fast Passenger Service will be against public interest. It is against the above judgment, the present appeals are filed. 4. On behalf of the appellants in connected appeals, different counsel appeared. According to the appellants, they have been conducting the service on the basis of the permits granted to them for the last so many years and they have been conducting the services effectively. At the time when they applied for permits, permits were issued only to operate as ordinary services. No permit was issued for Fast Passenger Service. Subsequent to that, fresh permits for Fast Passenger Services were issued to different persons. Appellants highlighted the fact that for the routes covered by the appellants, permits for Fast Passenger Services were issued to new operators and they are not able to compete with them. Further they submitted that the routes are meant for long distance passengers and hence in public interest the services are to be converted into Fast Passenger Services. Another plea was also raised against the maintainability of the writ petitions by the Government. 5. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. We were taken through the orders of the R.T.A., S.T.A.T. and that of the learned single Judge. 6. After hearing the parties, we are of the view that the judgment of the learned single Judge has to be maintained. The permits were issued to the appellants on the basis of the then existing need. The stops were determined after taking into consideration the needs of the commuters. The convenience of the students was also taken into consideration while granting the permits. Now, if the appellants are allowed to convert the permits as Fast Passenger Services, the number of stops will be reduced, the fare will be higher, the students who are entitled for concession when they travel by ordinary service will be deprived of the benefit. The only advantage that may accrue as a result of the conversion will be a little relief to the long distance passengers, in that they will be able to reach their destination quickly. The R.T.A. analysed these aspects and found that the common man will be affected if the con-version applied for is granted. The only advantage that may accrue as a result of the conversion will be a little relief to the long distance passengers, in that they will be able to reach their destination quickly. The R.T.A. analysed these aspects and found that the common man will be affected if the con-version applied for is granted. The services are intended for the public. The public depend on the ordinary service for their travel. If the number of ordinary services is reduced and fare is also hiked, the common man will be deprived of the benefit that had accrued to him when the buses were being operated as ordinary services. As the learned single Judge correctly put it, the R.T.A. is aware of the local conditions and his opinion is supported by good reasons. If that be so, there is nothing to interfere with the judgment. The S.T.A.T. took note of the convenience of long distance passengers and also the fact that recently a number of Fast Passenger Services have been allowed. It is true that for long distance passengers, the Fast Passenger Services will be beneficial. But, these services were started for the benefit of the long distance passengers and also for the short distance passengers. Hence the mere convenience of the long distance passengers cannot be a pointer to allow the applications for conversion. The fact that recently the R.T.A. is allowing fresh applications for Fast Passenger Services is not a reason for allowing the applications for conversion. When fresh applications for Fast Passenger Services are allowed, they are allowed only after taking into consideration the interest of the long distance travelling public. So far as short distance passengers are concerned, their interest is not taken into account. For taking care of their interest other services are being operated. In the above view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. 7. So far as the contention that the State Government has no locus standi to file the writ petition, we find no reason to accept the same. When it is found that the order of the Appellate Tribunal will be not in public interest and when there are no affected parties to challenge the order of the Appellate Tribunal, it was open to the State to challenge the order of the Tribunal by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction. When it is found that the order of the Appellate Tribunal will be not in public interest and when there are no affected parties to challenge the order of the Appellate Tribunal, it was open to the State to challenge the order of the Tribunal by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction. Further, there was a letter O.P., viz. O.P. No. 16018/92 where it was complained that the conversion of the existing ordinary service as Fast Passenger Service is causing great harm to the public. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants then submitted that if their appeals are dismissed, they have to operate the service as ordinary service. The timings on which they operated the ordinary service had been given to other operators and it will be difficult for them to operate with the timings given to them earlier. This is a matter which the R.T.A. or the Secretary will have to look into if there are complaints to that effect. We further hold that we may not be understood laying down as a proposition of law that ordinary services cannot be converted into Fast Passenger Services in any event. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are holding that the permits granted to the appellants, if they are converted, will put the public interest in jeopardy. Appeals are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.