Judgment :- KANAKARAJ, J. These two writ petitions arise out of a common order passed by the third respondent on 29-4-1994. The first respondent is a stage carriage operator on the Erode to Kambuliyampatti, with independent singles between Erodo and Avinashi. It is an interdietricts route which lies partly in Periyar District and partly in Coimbatore District. The first respondent has made an application before the second respondent, seeking variation of the permit in respect of his stage carriage, both for reduction of two singles between Erode to Kambuliyampatti and extension of the route from Avinashi to Coimbatore. The said application for variation was made under the repealed Motor Vehicles Act 1939 and, as required under Section 57(3) of the said Act, it was notified calling for representations from various sector operators. The petitioners in those two writ petitions had also filed their objections. The second respondent took up the application for variation and passed orders on 29-6-1989 and the operative of the order was as follows :- 'Variation allowed subject to Concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore and subject to waiver of excess Kilomaterage by Transport Commissioner, Madras.' After the order of variation was passed on 29-6-1989 the second respondent had addressed the Transport Commissioner for waiver of excess Kilometerage and also the complementary authority namely, the Regional Transport Authority Coimbatore, for concurrence. It may be noticed here, that by an order dated 5-3-1993, the excess Kilometorage was waived and by an order dated 3-7-1989 the Regional Transport Authority Coimbatore had granted concurrence. 2. In the meanwhile the second respondent seems to have filed an application for withdrawing the request for variation. On the said application for withdrawal, the second respondent is said to have passed an order on 18-7-1989 cancelling the variation. This order of cancellation dated 18-7-1989 was challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal set aside the order of cancellation as being without jurisdiction. In other words, the original order of variation dated 29-6-1989 was dircted to be revived. The petitioners in W.P. No. 11581 of 1994 filed a Writ Petition No. 18542 of 1992 to quash the order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of cancellation dated 18-7-1989. Srinivasan, J. directed a remand of the case to the Tribunal because opportunity was not given to the objectors. The petitioners in W.P. No. 11581 of 1994 filed a Writ Petition No. 18542 of 1992 to quash the order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of cancellation dated 18-7-1989. Srinivasan, J. directed a remand of the case to the Tribunal because opportunity was not given to the objectors. As against the said order of Srinivasan, J. a Writ Appeal No. 520 of 1993 was filed. The Division Bench allowed the Writ appeal with the following directions :- 'Consequently, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order of the learned single Judge dated 26-2-1992 in W.P. No. 18542 of 1992 is set aside. The application dated 18-7-1989 filed by the appellant is also dismissed as withdrawn. The order dated 18-7-1989 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Periyar District at Erode, is also quashed. We, however, make it clear that this order shall not have any effect on the contentions of the parties nor shall it have any bearing on the proceedings initiated by way of application dated 24-6-1988 by the appellant. The parties are at liberty to raise their contentions.' Their Lordships further ordered as follows : "The result of the withdrawal of the application dated 18-7-1989 is that the earlier application dated 24-6-1988 filed by the appellant for grant of variation will remain on the file and it will have to be considered in accordance with law, if it has not been so far considered." * 3. In W.P. No. 307 of 1992, the second respondent sought for a direction to implement the variation dated 29-6-1989. After the order of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 520 of 1993, the petitioners obtained copies of the order of variation dated 29-6-1989 and filed appeals before the third respondent. These appeals were disposed of by the third repondent by the impugned order dated 29-4-1994. 4. Before the third respondent the first contention was that there was no order dated 29-6-1989 and that there was only a 'result order', being the result of the hearing of the Regional Transport Authority, Periyar District Dated 29-6-1989. It is not necessary for us to go into the correctness of this allegation because the Tribunal had called for the records of the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore and the Transport Commissioner, and come to a definite conclusion that there was a proper order passed on 29-6-1989 granting variation sought for by the second respondent. It is not necessary for us to go into the correctness of this allegation because the Tribunal had called for the records of the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore and the Transport Commissioner, and come to a definite conclusion that there was a proper order passed on 29-6-1989 granting variation sought for by the second respondent. This factual decision has not been questioned before us by either of the petitioners. 5. The other points urged before the third respondent were two in number. The first related to the jurisdiction of the second respondent to grant variation beyond 24 kilometers. The second related to the question whether the variation was saved by Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992 or not. On both the points the Tribunal held against the petitioners and hence, the present two writ petitions. 6. We will first take up the question of the variation being contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Limited v. Thiru M. A. Egappan, 1987 AIR(SC) 958, 1987 (1) CCC 757, 1987 (1) JT 545 , 1987 (1) Scale 416 , 1987 (2) SCC 47 , 1987 (2) SCR 391 , 1987 (2) UJ 10 and whether it is saved by Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992. The fact that the variation sought for overlaps certain approved schemes in respect of the route Coimbatore to Vellithirupur is not disputed. Therefore, there is no dispute that on the basis of the judgment in Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Limited v. Thiru M. A. Egappan (supra) the order of variation would have been illegal, is also not disputed. The Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992 was enacted solely for the purpose of validating certain grant of permits renewal, variation, modification, extension or curtailment during the period commencing from 4th June 1976 ending with the date of publication of Act 41 of 1992 in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. The fact that the grant of variation in this case was made on 29-6-1989 and as such it is within the period stated in Section 10 of Act 41 of 1992 is not disputed before us. In this connection it is only necessary for us to clarify the date of publication of the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992 as occurring in Section 10 thereof. In this connection it is only necessary for us to clarify the date of publication of the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992 as occurring in Section 10 thereof. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Thilagavathi v. Regional Transport Authority 1995 (1) ACC 208, 1994 (7) JT 643 , 1994 (5) Scale 32 , 1995 (1) SCC 456 , 1995 (1) SCJ 296 the Supreme Court observed as follows :- 'A superficial reading of Section 10 does give an impression that the operation of the Act for purposes of grant of permit stood extended not only up to 30-6-1990 but upon 31-7-1992. But that would be in the tooth of sub-section (4) of Section 6 and Section 3 itself. The purport of the Act was to protect those operators who has been issued permits between 1976 and 30-6-1990 and not to depart from the interpretation placed by this Court. The Legislature while protecting the past mistakes of the Government has taken care not to repeat it in future. This is not discrimination but accepting the decision given by this Court. Further it is a validating provision. In absence of it the action of the authorities granting permits which was legislatively made permissible by Sections 3 and 4 would not have been saved. It too cased to operate from 30-6-1990 in view of sub-section (3) of Section 11 which reads as under :- 'The provisions of the Act (except Sections 6 and 7) be deemed to have come into force on the 4th June, 1976 and remain in force up to and inclusive of the 30th June, 1990 and Section 6 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st July, 1990.' A provision which was legislatively dead on 30-6-1990 could not be deemed to be alive for purpose of grant of permit because of the expression 'the date of publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette' appearing in the provision. The High Court thus did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition of those operators whose claim for new permit after 30-6-1990 was rejected by the authorities. The above enunciation of law will, to some extent, clarify the observations in Associated Bus Service, Tvl. v. SMMS Motor Service, 1995 Writ LR 454. The High Court thus did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition of those operators whose claim for new permit after 30-6-1990 was rejected by the authorities. The above enunciation of law will, to some extent, clarify the observations in Associated Bus Service, Tvl. v. SMMS Motor Service, 1995 Writ LR 454. The observations of the Division Bench that Section 10 validated the permit granted between the period 4th June 1976 and 31-7-1992 could not be treated as a correct statement of law having regard to sub-section (3) of Section 10 of Act 41 of 1992 and also in view of the judgment of the Apex Court that the period in question is only between 4-6-1976 and 30-6-1990. To this extent the observation of the Tribunal in the impugned order, should also stand modified. 7. As already stated, this point need not detain us any further because the order of variation was passed is this case on 29-6-1989 well between the period 4-6-1989 and 30-6-1990. However, one interesting question arises for consideration as to whether orders granting variation the said period are saved or only permits issued between those two dates are saved ? This question has been raised in view of the observations of the Apex Court in Thilagavathi's case already quoted by us and for the purpose of emphasis we again quote the relevant sentence which is as follows :- 'The purport of the Act was to protect those operators who had been issued permits between 1976 and 30-6-1990 and not to depart from the interpretation placed by this Court.' It is argued that the words that only permits issued between 4-6-1976 and 30-6-1990 are saved and it is not enough if orders have been passed granting variation. This argument is not sound because of the following two reasons. In the very same judgment of the Apex Court, reference is made to the case of one Loganathan and his legal representative Samiyathal. They had asked for a permit and it was granted on 11-1-1988. What was done on 11-1-1988 was only an order granting permit because against the said order appeals were filed by the objectors. The Apex Court has held that order having been passed on 11-1-1988, between the period 4-6-1976 and 30-6-1990 is validated by Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992. That apart, as rightly pointed out by Mr. What was done on 11-1-1988 was only an order granting permit because against the said order appeals were filed by the objectors. The Apex Court has held that order having been passed on 11-1-1988, between the period 4-6-1976 and 30-6-1990 is validated by Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992. That apart, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Krishnamurthy learned Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent, in Sharif Ahaman v. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, 1978 AIR(SC) 209, 1978 (1) SCC 1 , 1978 (1) SCR 761 , 1977 UJ 719 , 1978 ALJ 1, 1978 All(LJ) 1 and Attar Singh v. R. T. Authority, Agra, 1978 UJ 262 , 1978 (4) SCC 165 , 1978 AIR(SC) 1152, 1978 ALJ 540, 1978 All(LJ) 540 it has been categorically held that the issue of a permit is only a ministerial act and has to automatically follow the order granting permit or variation. The following passage in the first quoted judgment can be referred to usefully. "In sum and substance, therefore, the appellate became entitled to the issuance of the permits in their favour by 31st March, 1975. It is difficult to understand as to in what sense their applications remained pending after 31st March, 1975 and how did they remain pending even in the remotest sense of the terms after the action of the stay order by the High Court and the dismissal of the writ petitions on the 10th of September, 1975. When the notification dated September 24, 1975 was issued the position was absolutely clear that nothing in any sense was pending except that in the physical sense of paper containing the permit was not actually issued. Clause (2) of the said notification was not meant to cover nor did it cover a case of this kind. The Regional Transport Authority failed in its legal duty in not implementing the order of the Appellate Tribunal and issuing the permits as a result thereof. It was, therefore, just and proper to grant the writ of mandamus as asked for by the appellants." * The same proposition is repeated in the second quoted decision in the following words : "In the instant case, as a result of the limited stay order passed by the High Court on the 20th of May, 1971, the Regional Transport Authority itself granted the permits. The applications, therefore, stood disposed of and were not pending. The applications, therefore, stood disposed of and were not pending. What remained pending was the ministerial act of issuing the permit on the fulfilment of the conditions imposed in the order. There was no difference between the sanction of a permit and grant of a permit as was sought to be made out by Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad." * Therefore, the first contention fails and we held that the order granting variation having been passed on 29-6-1989 is clearly saved by Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992. 8. The second contention relates to the grant of variation beyond 24 kilimetres. It is not disputed that the extension of the permit is for a distance of about 42 kilometres. The Tribunal has rightly pointed out that under the unrepealed Act, the Regional Transport Authority had power to grant variation beyond 24 kilometres, whenever an application had been made under Section 57(8) of the old Act. It is only when the power is exercised suo motu by Regional Transport Authority under Section 48(3)(xxi) of the Act, the restriction relating to 24 kilometres applies. This proposition has been well explained to Pratap Singh, J. in G.R.P. Nos. 4289, 4290, 4518 and 4619 of 1987 dated 14-7-1994. No doubt under the new Motor Vehicles Act, Central Act 59 of 1988 there is a restriction to the grant of variation beyond 24 Kilometres, but we are not concerned with the same. What is more, in this case, the Transport Commissioner has waived the excess Kilometerage by an order dated 5-4-1993 and the complementary authority namely, Regional Transport Authority Coimbatore has given concurrence on 3-7-1989. Therefore, the objection relating to the variation being beyond 24 Kilometres has no sustance. 9. In fine, the points raised by the petitioners fail and the writ petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.