B. K. SANGALAD, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner filed two applications before the II respondent to grant stage carriage permits for the route Bangalore to Mulbagal and back via places mentioned therein. The said applications were considered by the ii respondent in Subject Nos. 113 of 1995-96 and 114 of 1995-96 at its meeting held on 19-3-1996. The II respondent was pleased to grant the permits by its decision dated 21-5-1996. The appellant after obtaining the permits got the timings fixed and started operating the routes on 30th May, 1996. From 19th June, 1996 the operation had to be stopped in pursuance of Annexure-A. The KSRTC contested the matter in W. P. Nos. 14352 to 14358 of 1996. The writ petitions were allowed and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. Meanwhile the Writ appeal Nos. 6889 and 6890 of 1996 were filed. Much water has flowed over subsequently and many writ petitions have been filed and the matters have been remanded back. Finally the order as per Annexure-H was passed. Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the Karnataka state Appellate Tribunal in A. No. 858 of 1997 wherein interim application was filed for permission to operate the buses and the same has been rejected. Being aggrieved by this, the present writ petitions are filed. ( 2 ) MR. Rajgopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the tribunal can permit the appellant to continue the operation pending the disposal of the appeal. For this he relied upon a decision in the case of S. Nissar Ahmed v State of Karnataka and Others and another decision in the case of Allah Baksh and Others v State of Karnataka and Others. On the other hand, Mr. Prabhakar, learned HCGP submitted that in w. A. No. 6889 and 6890 of 1996, it is clearly held that the petitioners were not permitted to operate the services. ( 3 ) MR. Rajgopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to distinguish the order in the above-stated writ appeals from the judgment in w. A. Nos. 2353 and 2354 of 1992. ( 4 ) IT is pertinent to note that in W. A. Nos. 6889 and 6890 of 1996, it is observed that when the application is pending before the RTA, the appellants were not permitted to operate the buses. 2353 and 2354 of 1992. ( 4 ) IT is pertinent to note that in W. A. Nos. 6889 and 6890 of 1996, it is observed that when the application is pending before the RTA, the appellants were not permitted to operate the buses. But, in the latter cases relied upon by Mr. Rajgopal, it is observed as follows:"the case of the operators appears to be that having regard to the huge investments made by them for acquiring the vehicles and creating other infrastructures for running the transport system, they will suffer considerable loss and hardship if they are not allowed to continue the services on the granted routes. That in the event of their success the same cannot be adequately compensated. There is considerable force in this plea. In the circumstances of the case, it appears to be just and expedient. . . . . to allow the operators to continue their respective bus services on the said routes pending disposal of their appeals". ( 5 ) THIS decision makes it clear that the Tribunal can exercise its discretion to permit the petitioners to continue the operation pending the disposal of the appeals, provided the permits were already granted. If the appeal is filed against the rejection of application for grant of permit itself during the pendency of the appeal, no permission can be granted for operation. As the petitioners have approached the Tribunal and the appeals are pending and they have already invested money for purchasing the buses and to create infrastructures, the same benefit can be extended. In the light of this observation, the following order is passed: the writ petitions are allowed. Pending the disposal of the A. No. 858 of 1997, the petitioner is permitted to operate the services. However, the tribunal may make an endeavour to dispose of this appeal within two months. --- *** --- .