S. ABDUL NAZEER, J. ( 1 ) IN these petitions, the petitioner has sought for quashing the composite order passed by the Karnataka State transport Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the tribunal') in KPNus. 828/99. 1056/99 and 1467/99 dated 31 -5 2000 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the revision petitions filed by the Karnataka State Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') and the other contesting respondents and has set aside the order passed by the Karnataka state Transport Authority (for short 'ksta') dated 26-5-1999. ( 2 ) PETITIONER is the holder of a Stage Carriage Permit bearing No. 78/98 authorized to operate on the route between Hindupur and Bangalore via Gowrlbiddanur, thonddebhavi, D. B. Pura, Hesarghatta and jalahalli and back to operate at the rate of two round trips a day. The permit has been countersigned by the State Transport 'authority, Andhra Pradesh and is saved under kolar Pocket Scheme. ( 3 ) THE petitioner filed an application to the Second respondent fdr grant of a variation of conditions of permit by way of deviation of a portion of the route between doddaballapur and Bangalore via rajanakunte, Yelahanka, Hebbal instead of gullahalli, Hesarghatta, Dasarahalli and jalahalli. ( 4 ) THE second respondent considered the said application at its meeting held on 21-5-1999 and granted variation by a resolution in Subject No. 100/1999 vide Annexure- a, Thereafter, the petitioner obtained anien- dorsement of variation and commenced operation of the service. Against the said order, the 3rd respondent filed a Revision Petition before the Tribunal in RP No. 828/ 1999, 4th respondent in RP No. 1056/1999 and 5th respondent-Corporation in RP No. 1467/1999 contending that the second respondent has erred in granting deviation on the monopoly route. The petitioner has contested the said proceedings before the first respondent. However, first respondent by the order impugned in this writ petition, allowed the revision petitions and set aside the grant of variation. ( 5 ) THE contesting respondents have filed their objections to the writ petition. The 3rd respondent in its objections has stated that the petitioner held a Stage Carriage Permit on the route Hindupur to Bangalore and back via Gowribiddanur, Thondebhavi, doddaballapura, Hesarghatta and Jalahalli performing two round trips per day. ( 5 ) THE contesting respondents have filed their objections to the writ petition. The 3rd respondent in its objections has stated that the petitioner held a Stage Carriage Permit on the route Hindupur to Bangalore and back via Gowribiddanur, Thondebhavi, doddaballapura, Hesarghatta and Jalahalli performing two round trips per day. The portion of the route between the State Border to Doddaballapura overlaps the notified route of Kolar Pocket Scheme where the petitioner is an existing saved operator and between Doddaballapura to Bangalore is purely a non-monopoly route with which the petitioner was operating ever-since the permit was transferred to his name. Petitioner has sought curtailment of route between doddaballapura to Bangalore via Hesaraghatta, dasarahalli and Jalahalli, and sought a deviation to operate between Rajanakunte to yelahanka and back which is a notified route under the Kolar Pocket Scheme. Since the deviation granted by the second respondent overlaps the notified route of Kolar pocket Scheme, the second respondent is not justified in granting variations of the conditions of the permit enabling him to ply the vehicle on the monopoly rqute. It is further contended that the Tribunal therefore, was justified in allowing the revision petitions filed by the contesting respondents. ( 6 ) THE 4th and 5th respondents have also filed similar objections to the writ petitions. ( 7 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted permit in the year 1958 and that Kolar Pocket scheme is not a complete exclusion scheme. The petitioner was operating between hindupur to Bangalore. A portion of the said route from Hindupur to Doddaballapura is a notified mute and from Doddaballapura to Bangalore is a non-monopoly route. There is no prohibition to grant permit by way of variation of conditions of permit on monopoly route and that the second respondent is justified in granting deviation from non-monopoly route to monopoly route as per Annexure-A. He further submits that the revision filed by the contesting respondents, challenging the order of KSTA before the tribunal, is not maintainable in law. They should have filed an appeal instead of a revision. He has pointed out that in similar matters, the Tribunal in RP No. 1453/99 and 1414/1999 dated 2-5-2000 has held that the revision is not maintainable. They should have filed an appeal instead of a revision. He has pointed out that in similar matters, the Tribunal in RP No. 1453/99 and 1414/1999 dated 2-5-2000 has held that the revision is not maintainable. The petitioner has produced a copy of the order at annexure-C. The petitioners in those cases being aggrieved by the said order have filed a writ petition in WP No. 23379/2000 and this Court by order dated 13-10-2000 has confirmed the order of the Tribunal. Writ appeal filed against the said order is also dismissed. Thus, he contends that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the revisions on the ground that the revisions are not maintainable against the order of the KSTA in granting the deviation of permit. It is further contended that the total curtailment is 50 Kms and the total deviation is 40 Kms. Therefore, the deviation granted is not contrary to Sec. 80 (3) of the MV Act, 1988. He further submits that the Tribunal is not justified in holding that having regard to its previous order in RP 717/1994, the STAT should not have granted deviation of permit. Finally, he submits that since the Kular pocket Scheme has been modified by a Notification dated 7-11-2003, the variation or permits conditions granted to the petitioner is saved. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the order impugned and remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in view of the modification of the Kolar Pocket scheme. : ( 9 ) PER contra, Sri. Prakash Shetty learned counsel for the Corporation submits that chapter VI of the MV Act, 1988 has an overriding effect. Therefore, the second respondent is not justified in granting deviation of permit enabling the petitioner to ply his vehicle on the monopoly route. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted permit on,the monopoly route from Hindupura to doddaballapura and from Dpddaballapura to Bangalore on a non-monopoly route. Under the guise of the deviation, the second respondent could not have granted permission to the petitioner to ply his vehicle on the notified route from Doddaballapur to bangalore via Rajanakunta, Yelahanka and hebbal. He further submits that the predecessor of the petitioner has sought a similar deviation and the KSTA had granted the said deviation which was challenged before the Tribunal in RP No. 717/1994. The Tribunal has set aside the said order of the sta which has become final. He further submits that the predecessor of the petitioner has sought a similar deviation and the KSTA had granted the said deviation which was challenged before the Tribunal in RP No. 717/1994. The Tribunal has set aside the said order of the sta which has become final. Since the petitioner has succeeded to the said permit, the order of the Tribunal in RP No. 717/1994 is binding on the petitioner. He further submits that after Gajraj Singh's case ( AIR 1997 sc 412 ) the petitioner was granted the present permit in lieu of the old permit. Thus the petitioner is bound by the order in RP no. 1717/1994. It is further argued that the variation granted is not in conformity with the law and that the variation cannot be granted on a notified route. He further submits that the petitioner is a saved operator only to the extent of what was granted under the scheme and that no deviation could be granted from the original permit. It is further contended that the revisions filed by the contesting respondents before the Tribunal is maintainable. He further submits that without prejudice to his aforesaid contentions, the deviation granted is more than 24 Kms which is opposed to: Section 80 (3) of the MVAct. 1988. ( 10 ) SRI B. R S. Gupta, Sri G. Lingappa. learned counsel appeaning for the other contesting respondents have supported the submission made by Sri Prakash Shetty. ( 11 ) IN the light of the aforesaid contentions, the points that arise for consideration are as follows; (i) Whether the deviation granted by the ksta from non-monopoly rqute to monopoly route to a saved operator is permissible in law? (ii) Whether the proceedings initiated by the petitioner seeking variation of the permit is barred by the- principles of resjudicata?; (iii) Whether the Revision petitions filed by the contesting respondents before the tribunal is maintainable? (iv) Whether the deviation granted by the ksta is contrary to Sec. 80 (3) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988? (v) Whether the matter requires to be remanded for fresh consideration in view of the modification of the Kolar Pocket Scheme by Notification dated 7-11-2003. Re. Point No. 1 : ( 12 ) THERE is no dispute that the petitioner was holding a Stage Carriage Permit authorised to operate between Hindupur to bangalore, since 1958. (v) Whether the matter requires to be remanded for fresh consideration in view of the modification of the Kolar Pocket Scheme by Notification dated 7-11-2003. Re. Point No. 1 : ( 12 ) THERE is no dispute that the petitioner was holding a Stage Carriage Permit authorised to operate between Hindupur to bangalore, since 1958. By a notification dated 10-1-1968, Kolar Pocket Scheme was notified and the route in question was nationalised. The material part of the scheme relevant for our purposes is as follows : ( 21 )