Judgment : This is the yet another round of 25 years old litigation pertaining to the application of respondent No.4 for a pucca stage carriage permit on the route Madakasira-Dorigallu. In the immediately preceding round, this Court allowed WP.No.24167 of 2000 filed by respondent No.4 and remanded the case to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') for rendering a specific finding with reference to the record as to whether the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.4 was an existing operator on the route Madakasira to Dorigallu as on 04.03.1978 when approved schemes were notified on a part of the said route. After remand, the Tribunal passed order on 17.10.2008 answering the said issue in favour of respondent No.4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. This writ petition was specially posted before this Court on the direction of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.4 agreed for final disposal at the admission stage. After hearing the case on 14.11.2008, it was adjourned to 18.11.2008 to enable the Government Pleader for Transport to produce original record pertaining to the case. Learned Government Pleader produced the permit register. He, however, reported that the file containing resolutions of the Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur, was not traceable despite serious searches. The learned counsel advanced further arguments and thereafter orders were reserved. Both the official and private respondents have filed their respective counter affidavits. Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal committed a serious error in not summoning the original record. He submitted that the entire order passed by the Tribunal is based on an irrelevant consideration, namely, that the register of stage carriage permits maintained by the officials did not contain the endorsements pertaining to curtailment of the original permit. Learned counsel contended that neither the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, 'the 1939 Act') nor the Motor Vehicles Rules (for short, 'the Rules') made thereunder prescribe any register and mere absence of endorsements of curtailment in the register maintained by the department is neither conclusive nor has got any relevance to ascertain the actual fact as to whether the permit was curtailed by the competent authority before the schemes were notified or not. Learned counsel pointed out that the Tribunal failed to give any specific finding on official endorsements dated 03.05.1973 and 06.09.1975 under which the route was curtailed and varied as Doddaghatta to Dorigallu via., Roddam, Penukonda, Bukkapatnam and Mudigubba and Doddaghatta to Kodevandlapalli via., Roddam, Penukonda, Bukkapatnam, Mudigubba and Dorigallu respectively. Learned counsel therefore submitted that as on the date of publication of approved schemes, the permit holder was no longer holding the original permit on the route Madakasira to Dorigallu and the said permit was curtailed twice at the instance of the permit holder and that therefore the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.4 was not an existing operator on the route Madakasira to Dorigallu. Learned Government Pleader for Transport supported these contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that the Tribunal committed a patent error in directing grant of a fresh permit on the ground that the original permit between Madakasira and Dorigallu was not curtailed as on the date of the schemes coming into force. Sri Nousad Ali, learned counsel representing respondent No.4 seriously opposed these contentions and submitted that the permit was never curtailed by the transport department and that it is only on account of lack of counter signature that the bus was not operated on the entire route and that therefore it was a mere self-curtailment. The learned counsel supported the finding of the Tribunal by contending that though the statutory provisions did not envisage maintenance of register, the fact remains that such a register is maintained by the department duly signed by its competent authorities. He submitted that had there been official curtailment, the same would have reflected in the appropriate entries in the register. The learned counsel argued that absence of entries evidencing curtailment of the route is conclusive proof of the fact that there was never any official curtailment of original permit and therefore respondent No.4 is entitled to grant of a permit, being the saved operator. He further submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to question grant of permit in favour of respondent No.4 as he was a rival operator. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Abdul Kai Khan vs. Subal Chandra Ghose and others (2002) 4 SCC 519 and of this Court in A.Ramanayya Vs. RTA, reptd., by its Secretary, Visakhapatnam and others 1986(2) ALT 107 (S.N). He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Abdul Kai Khan vs. Subal Chandra Ghose and others (2002) 4 SCC 519 and of this Court in A.Ramanayya Vs. RTA, reptd., by its Secretary, Visakhapatnam and others 1986(2) ALT 107 (S.N). He further submitted that the order of the Tribunal, which rendered finding with reference to the record, is not liable to be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the same does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Before adverting to the order passed by the Tribunal, the bare facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this writ petition need to be mentioned. The father-in-law of the petitioner Sri late E.Seetharamaiah was granted a pucca stage carriage permit on the interstate route Madakasira to Dorigallu via., Doddaghatta, Roddam, Penugonda, Kothacheruvu, Bukkapatnam, Pamudurthi and Mudigubba in the year 1950. For convenience he is referred to as "permit holder". It was an interstate route with major portion falling in the State of Andhra Pradesh and a small length of 3.2 kms falling in the State of Karnataka. As the starting and terminal points are located in the State of Andhra Pradesh, it is an enclave route within the meaning of Section 63 of the 1939 Act, which requires counter signature of the authority of the State other than the State, which granted permit. According to respondent No.4, since no counter signature was obtained by the permit holder from the State of Karnataka, there was a self-curtailment of the permit by restricting the operation between Doddaghatta and Dorigallu, excluding portion of the route between Doddaghatta and Madakasira. In the year 1978, as many as four schemes were published by the State of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.Nos.118, 135, 154 and 177 dated 04.03.1978. On 28.06.1990, another route was notified vide G.O.Ms.No.261 between Mudigubba and Dharmavaram. These five schemes put together covered the entire route between Roddam and Dorigallu, which forms part of the route between Dorigallu and Madakasira in respect of which pucca stage carriage was originally granted in favour of the permit holder. On 28.06.1990, another route was notified vide G.O.Ms.No.261 between Mudigubba and Dharmavaram. These five schemes put together covered the entire route between Roddam and Dorigallu, which forms part of the route between Dorigallu and Madakasira in respect of which pucca stage carriage was originally granted in favour of the permit holder. It is the common case of the parties that the schemes notified in the said G.Os., saved "the holders of existing stage carriage permits in respect of interstate routes". The case of respondent No.4 is that consequent on the advent of the abovementioned approved schemes respondent No.4's operation was confined between Doddaghatta and Roddam. The reason put-forth by respondent No.4 for this is that as there was no counter signature by the Karnataka State Authority, they could not operate on the portion lying between Madakasira and Doddaghatta, which fell within the State of Karnataka and after the publication of the approved schemes, they were permitted to operate between Roddam and Doddaghatta only as the portion of the route between Roddam and Dorigallu was covered by one or the other notified routes. It is the further case of respondent No.4 that in law they are entitled to operate the permit on the entire route, namely, Madakasira to Dorigallu, because the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1969, which came into force with effect from 30.12.1969 amended Section 63 of the 1939 Act by adding a proviso which envisaged that where both the starting point and terminal point of a route are situated within the same State, but part of such route lies in any other State and the length of such part does not exceed 16 kms., the permit shall be valid in the other State in respect of that part of the route, which is in that other State notwithstanding that such permit has not been countersigned by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority of that State. It is thus the case of respondent No.4 that there was no legal impediment for operating on the route between Madakasira and Doddaghatta even without a counter signature and also to operate on the route between Doddaghatta and Dorigallu, because being the holder of stage carriage permit in respect of the interstate route, the permit is saved by all the five schemes. As the operation of respondent No.4's permit was restricted to the route between Roddam and Doddaghatta, the permit holder made an application for grant of a pucca permit on the route Madakasira to Dorigallu before respondent No.1. The said application was rejected by respondent No.1 on 27.01.1984. The said order was originally challenged by the permit holder by filing WP.No.7226 of 1984. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the permit holder died. Her mother-in-law, who was brought on record, having also died, respondent No.4 was brought on record as her legal representative. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 08.02.1994. This Court held that both the Tribunal and respondent No.1 committed error in holding that respondent No.4's claim cannot be considered on the ground that there was no counter signature on her permit made by the competent authority of the Karnataka State as the said conclusion was contrary to the second proviso of Section 63 of Clause (1) of the 1939 Act. In the light of the said finding, the case was remanded to the Tribunal to decide the question of fact as to whether respondent No.4 was an existing operator on the route Madakasira to Dorigallu on the relevant date, and, if so, whether she can be granted permit from Madakasira to Dorigallu in the light of the nationalization of the routes. The Tribunal was directed to dispose of the case within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. After remand, the Tribunal re-considered the case and dismissed the appeal of respondent No.4 by confirming the order of respondent No.1 by its order dated 21.06.1999. This order was questioned in WP.No.24167 of 2000. This Court, after elaborate consideration of the case, by order dated 31-2-2008, allowed and remanded the case to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. After remand, the Tribunal re-considered the case and dismissed the appeal of respondent No.4 by confirming the order of respondent No.1 by its order dated 21.06.1999. This order was questioned in WP.No.24167 of 2000. This Court, after elaborate consideration of the case, by order dated 31-2-2008, allowed and remanded the case to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Adverting to order dated 27.01.1984 passed by respondent No.1 herein (respondent No.2 in the said writ petition), this Court observed as under: "In its order dated 27.01.1984 passed by respondent No.2 it held that the applicant was not the original permit holder on the interstate route on the date when the approved schemes came into force, that he never held a permit of interstate route with due counter signature, that though a permit was granted to him on the interstate route it was not countersigned by the authorities of the Karnataka State authorities unless double point tax was paid and that long before the approval of the schemes on 04.03.1978 the petitioner's permit was rendered ineffective. The said authority in the said order stated that it considered the arguments with reference to record. But, regrettably it failed to point out the relevant documents and give specific findings as to how, when and in what manner the original permit on the route Madakasira-Dorigallu was varied up to the year 1978 when the approved schemes came into force. Added to this, it mixed up the issue of counter signature and non-payment of tax, which was found to be irrelevant by this Court in WP.No.7662 of 1986, in view of the amendment introduced in the year 1969, doing away with the need for counter signature." With reference to the order passed by the Tribunal confirming the said order of respondent No.1, this Court held as under: "The above reproduced portion of the order of respondent No.1, carefully read, reveals contradictory observations. In the earlier part of the order, respondent No.1 observed that the petitioner was the permit holder on the route in question since 1950 "when the route was nationalized". Learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on this observation in support of his contention that as on the date when the approved schemes came into operation, she was holding the permit on the entire route. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on this observation in support of his contention that as on the date when the approved schemes came into operation, she was holding the permit on the entire route. The abovementioned observation of respondent No.1 lacks clarity and if the said observation is read in isolation it is possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. But if the said observation is read in the light of the rest of the order, its effect gets watered down. Though this Court in WP.No.7662 of 1986 held that both respondent Nos.1 and 2 committed serious error in relying upon absence of counter signature and non-payment of tax, respondent No.1 fell into error by reiterating the reasoning of respondent No.2 contained in its order dated 27.01.1984 which was set aside by this Court in the said writ petition. It also observed that whether curtailment is an official act or voluntary act, the permit holder was operating the vehicle only on the curtailed route but not on the entire route and that therefore he cannot be treated as holding a valid permit. This Court is at a loss to understand as to why respondent No.1 rested its conclusions on inferences and surmises instead of summoning the record and carefully perusing the same in order to arrive at a definite finding as to whether the original permit on the route in question was at any time varied and what exactly was the permit that was in existence as on 04.03.1978 when the three approved schemes were notified. Respondent No.1, evidently failed to keep in view that being the appellate Tribunal it is its duty to determine the factual disputes with reference to the record and instead of arriving at the finding of fact based on record it rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that she failed to produce positive evidence to show that she was an existing operator on the route when the schemes were notified. In my considered view, by making this approach, respondent No.1 failed to carry out the direction given by this Court in WP.No.7662 of 1986 wherein, as noted above, this Court directed it to decide the question of fact as to whether the petitioner was an existing operator on the relevant date. In my considered view, by making this approach, respondent No.1 failed to carry out the direction given by this Court in WP.No.7662 of 1986 wherein, as noted above, this Court directed it to decide the question of fact as to whether the petitioner was an existing operator on the relevant date. Had respondent No.1 spared some efforts to look into the record and render a finding of fact on the specific issue, which was directed to be decided by this Court, it would have avoided rendering findings which are conflicting and ambiguous. On a careful consideration of the impugned order, I am of the view that respondent No.1 failed to decide the issue from a proper perspective with reference to the facts on record." In its concluding portion, this Court gave the following direction: "Accordingly, order dated 21.06.1999 of respondent No.1 is set aside and the case is remanded to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Respondent No.1 shall dispose of the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order." With the above factual matrix in view, the impugned order of the Tribunal shall be examined. It is relevant to mention at this stage that the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.4 urged that this Court may adjudicate the case on merits on the basis of the available record, even if it is found that the Tribunal's findings are inadequate, in order to put a quietus to this vexed litigation. I find this request reasonable and propose to examine the issue with a view to give conclusive findings. The petitioner produced three endorsements made by the Secretary, RTA, Anantapur, which are dated 03.05.1973, 29.03.1976 and 04.10.1977. Under the first endorsement, the Secretary, RTA, Anantapur, mentioned that in pursuance of the orders of the RTA, Anantapur, the route Madakasira to Dorigallu via., Doddaghatta, Roddam, Penukonda, Bukkapatnam and Mudigubba is varied as Doddaghatta to Dorigallu via., Roddam, Penukonda, Bukkapatnam and Mudigubba with two additional singles between Doddaghatta and Penukonda with effect from 04.05.1973. The said endorsement also contains the timings fixed thereunder. The said endorsement also contains the timings fixed thereunder. Under second endorsement dated 06.09.1975 made by the Secretary, RTA, Anantapur, it is mentioned that in pursuance of Resolution No.43 dated 11.08.1975, the existing route Doddaghatta to Dorigallu (via) Roddam, Penukonda, Bukkapatnam and Mudigubba is varied as Doddaghatta to Kodavandlapalli (via) Roddam, Penukonda, Bukkapatnam, Mudigubba and Dorigallu with the timings mentioned therein. The third endorsement dated 04.10.1977 was in relation to change of timings of the bus on the route Doddaghatta to Kodavandlapalli. The Tribunal, however, declined to place reliance on these endorsements by observing: "Rule 260 of the Rules reads that the vehicles must run in accordance with the schedule, variation of the routes, change of timings, starting place, terminals have to be embodied in the permit of the permit holder from time to time in the register maintained for stage carriage permits." The Tribunal further held that the register is prescribed under the Rules and it is the document, which evidences the changes such as variation, and curtailment, which shall be embodied in the said register. The Tribunal relied on the certified copy of the extract of the register of stage carriage permits signed by the Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur, which was produced before it and observed that if there was official curtailment of the route by proceedings dated 03.05.1973, it must have found a place in the register, but the variation and curtailment were not entered in the register, though it contained endorsements relating to renewal of permit made from time to time. On this premises, the Tribunal held that in the absence of entries of curtailment made in the register, the documents relied on by the petitioner would not have any legal effect. It observed that as this Court directed the Tribunal to decide what could be the legal effect of the endorsements, as they were not entered in the register, it must be construed that the permit holder was an existing operator as on 04.03.1978 and that officially the permit was not varied. Learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully submitted that neither Rule 260 nor any other Rule or the provisions of the 1939 Act referred to permit register and that the Tribunal totally misconstrued Rule 260 by reading into it the permit register and several other aspects, which are not envisaged by the said Rule. Learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully submitted that neither Rule 260 nor any other Rule or the provisions of the 1939 Act referred to permit register and that the Tribunal totally misconstrued Rule 260 by reading into it the permit register and several other aspects, which are not envisaged by the said Rule. To consider this submission, it is necessary to extract Rule 260 herein below. "260. Variation of permit on application:-(1) Upon application made in writing by the holder of any permit, the Transport Authority may, at any time, vary the permit or any of the conditions thereof subject to the provisions of Section 57 (8) and of sub-rule (2): Provided that it shall be open to Transport Authority to reject summarily an application for the variation of a permit, if within the period of six months immediately preceding the application, a request for the same variation of permit on the same grounds had been refused. (2) If the grant of variation would authorize transport facilities materially different from those authorized by the original permit, the Transport Authority shall deal with the application as if it were an application for a permit. [Explanation:- For the purposes of this rule, any variation involving an increase of over forty per cent or any reduction in the seating capacity, other than the variation due to the alterations effected in conformity with the rules made under Chapter V of the Act in respect of the original permit of a stage carriage shall be treated as variation in transport facilities materially different from those authorized by such permit.]" The above reproduced provision empowers the Transport Authority to vary the permit or any of the conditions thereof upon an application made by the permit holder. It also confers power on the Transport Authority to reject such an application, if made, before the expiry of six months after rejection of a similar request. This provision does not either expressly or by necessary implication make any reference whatsoever to any register, leave alone providing for incorporation of details such as variation of the routes, change of timings, starting place and terminals mentioned in the permit, in such a register. This provision does not either expressly or by necessary implication make any reference whatsoever to any register, leave alone providing for incorporation of details such as variation of the routes, change of timings, starting place and terminals mentioned in the permit, in such a register. I am therefore entirely in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has read extraneous things into Rule 260 and rejected the endorsements referred to above, produced by the petitioner by holding that the same have no legal effect in the absence of entries in the permit register. Indeed, Sri Nousad Ali fairly conceded that there is no statutory provision, which expressly provided for maintenance of a permit register, but he, however, added that it is the established practice by which the Transport Department is maintaining permit registers and making necessary entries therein as and when the permits are granted, varied and renewed. As the Tribunal's conclusions are solely rested on the absence of entries in the register regarding curtailment of the route, I have summoned the original register, which was produced by the official respondents. A careful perusal of the said register shows that the first entry under column "Route, routes or area for which the permit is issued" was in respect of "Madakasira to Dorigallu (via) Doddaghatta, Roddam, Penukonda, Kothacheruvu, Bukkapatnam and Mudigubba". The total distance is shown as 224 kms against "existing mileage" and 6.4 kms towards "due to variation" with the total mileage of 230.4 kms. The register contains endorsements of renewal of permit made from the year 1970 onwards. The register also finds other endorsements relating to replacement of bus etc. Though the original route "Madakasira to Dorigallu", which was mentioned in the column referred to supra, has not been amended subsequently by making a specific entry regarding the curtailed routes in the register proper, on the top of the column "Route, routes or area for which the permit is issued", it was written in manuscript as "Doddaghatta to Kodavandlapalli". At the hearing, this original register was shown to Sri Nousad Ali, who has also noticed the said endorsement regarding the route. At the hearing, this original register was shown to Sri Nousad Ali, who has also noticed the said endorsement regarding the route. The Tribunal failed to notice this crucial aspect, which demonstrably suggests that the original route Madakasira to Mudigubba was varied as Doddaghatta to Kodavandlapalli in pursuance of resolution No.42 dated 11.08.1975, which was referred to in endorsement dated 06.09.1975 produced by the petitioner before the Tribunal. A further examination of the record reveals that though no further endorsements regarding variation of the permits were made in the register, several endorsement slips in original were pasted on the relevant page concerning the permit in question. I find from these endorsement slips, endorsement dated 03.05.1973 under which the original route Madakasira to Dorigallu has been varied as Doddaghatta to Dorigallu via., Roddam, Penukonda, Bukkapatnam and Mudigubba, second endorsement dated 06.09.1975 by which the existing permit Doddaghatta to Dorigallu was varied as Doddaghatta to Kodavandlapalli via., Roddam, Penukonda, Bukkapatnam, Mudigubba and Dorigallu with the timings indicated therein and another endorsement dated 16.05.1978 whereby the existing route Doddaghatta to Kodavandlapalli was curtailed from Roddam to Kodavandlapalli in view of implementation of the approved scheme Nos.121, 135, 136, 154 and 156 of 1978 and limiting the permit between Doddaghatta to Roddam. Significantly, the kilometerage of 308.4 kms, which was existing at that time, was reduced to 44 kms by curtaining 264.4 kms. The register also contains several subsequent endorsements of renewals made from time to time, pasted to it. The Tribunal grossly failed to take note of these original endorsements attached to the register. Though this Court directed the Tribunal to decide the issue with reference to the record, it is not known why it failed to call for the original record. In its order, it has stated that the official respondents filed certified copy of the register. It is not clear whether the certified copy produced by the department contained the endorsement slips referred to above. The fact, however, remains that the Tribunal completely lost site of the said endorsement slips, which clearly prove that the original permit was varied on as many as three occasions, namely, 03.05.1973, 06.09.1975 and 16.05.1978. By pasting of the said endorsements they have officially got incorporated in the permit register. The fact, however, remains that the Tribunal completely lost site of the said endorsement slips, which clearly prove that the original permit was varied on as many as three occasions, namely, 03.05.1973, 06.09.1975 and 16.05.1978. By pasting of the said endorsements they have officially got incorporated in the permit register. Thus, irrespective of its legal status, the register, on which heavy reliance is placed by the Tribunal and respondent No.4, contains the endorsements of the route varied from time to time. The Tribunal ought not to have ignored these official documents forming part of record and rejected the endorsements produced by the petitioner in a lighthearted manner. Though respondent No.4 maintained that the purported resolutions of the RTA, Anantapur, reflected in the endorsements issued by the Secretary, RTA, Anantapur, were not given effect to officially, it is not the pleaded case of respondent No.4 that such resolutions were never passed by the RTA and the endorsements were not genuine. Though this Court has pointedly asked the learned counsel for respondent No.4 to spell out his client's stand regarding the genuineness of the endorsements, he did not come out with any specific answer. While it is never the case of respondent No.4 that these endorsements were brought up only to deny permit to her, even if such a stand is taken, the same does not stand scrutiny of this Court in the face of the original endorsements contained in the register, the genuineness of which can never be doubted. The material on record discussed above thus clinchingly established that the original permit of respondent No.4 between Madakasira and Dorigallu was officially curtailed on two occasions and the permit was confined to the route Doddaghatta to Kodavandlapalli via, Roddam, Penukonda, Bukkapatnam, Mudigubba and Dorigallu as on 04.03.1978 when as many as four approved schemes referred to above were notified. With the introduction of the approved schemes, the permit of respondent No.4 was further curtailed between Roddam and Kodavandlapalli as the said portion overlaps the said notified routes and the permit was confined between Doddaghatta to Roddam from 25.03.1978, as evident from the original endorsement dated 16.05.1978 made by the Secretary, RTA, Anantapur. With the introduction of the approved schemes, the permit of respondent No.4 was further curtailed between Roddam and Kodavandlapalli as the said portion overlaps the said notified routes and the permit was confined between Doddaghatta to Roddam from 25.03.1978, as evident from the original endorsement dated 16.05.1978 made by the Secretary, RTA, Anantapur. This material thus belies respondent No.4's plea that operation of her vehicle between Doddaghatta and Kodavandlapalli on the date of coming into force of approved schemes was merely an act of self-curtailment and that with the advent of the said approved schemes the petitioner was permitted to operate between Doddaghatta and Roddam, treating the self-curtailment as an official curtailment. The Tribunal fell into a serious error in not looking into this vital record and merely relying on the sole circumstance that the register did not contain the endorsement of varied route. At this juncture it is relevant to consider two crucial aspects. Firstly, the theory of self curtailment put-forth by respondent No.4, apart from not being supported by the above discussed record, does not fit into the admitted facts. According to respondent No.4, the permit holder stopped plying in the Karnataka portion due to absence of counter signature. But, it is her own pleaded case that the provisions of the 1939 Act were amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1969, with effect from 30-12-1969 by doing away with the necessity of counter signature where the portion of the enclave route does not exceed 16 kms in the other State. If it was a case of self curtailment, on account of non-obtaining of counter signature, the permit holder would have resumed his operations on the entire route following the said amendment. But this has not happened though the schemes were not notified for nine years after the said amendment. No explanation has been offered by respondent No.4 in this regard. Secondly, no reason is forthcoming from respondent No.4 for not producing at least a copy of the permit as it stood as on 4-3-1978 when approved schemes came into force. Even if her plea that the original permit was made to be surrendered due to nationalization in 1978, the permit holder is expected to retain at least a copy of the permit. Even if her plea that the original permit was made to be surrendered due to nationalization in 1978, the permit holder is expected to retain at least a copy of the permit. Failure of respondent No.4 to produce a copy of the permit existing at the time of nationalization in the year 1978 gives rise to a reasonable presumption against her plea that the original permit was not officially varied. I may hasten to add that these two aspects, though not determinative of the question already answered by this Court, only further strengthen the conclusion arrived at by this Court from the record referred to and discussed above that the plea of self curtailment pressed into service by respondent No.4 has absolutely no basis whatsoever. As the permit holder did not hold the permit, which was originally granted from Madakasira to Dorigallu on 04.03.1978, the date on which the four approved schemes came into force, respondent No.4 is not entitled to grant of a new permit because her father-in-law was not an existing permit holder on the route Madakasira to Dorigallu. With regard to the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.4 that the petitioner has no locus standi, I see no merit in the same. A similar contention was raised in the earlier writ petition, namely, WP.No.24167 of 2000. In that writ petition the petitioner was respondent No.6. While rejecting the said contention, this Court held as under: "Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have no locus standi, I find no substance in the said contention. It is an undisputed fact that right from the word 'go' when the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest initiated the proceedings for obtaining a fresh permit, the mother of respondent No.6 and thereafter respondent Nos.5 and 6 respectively have been resisting the efforts to obtain fresh permit. The Division Bench in WA.No.843 of 2001 gave finding that if the 1939 Act applies, respondent Nos.5 would have locus standi to raise the objection regarding the grant of permit in favour of the petitioner. It is agreed by the learned counsel for both the parties that it is the 1939 Act which applies to the present case and therefore there can be no manner of doubt that respondent No.6 has locus standi to oppose the application of the petitioner for grant of a fresh permit. It is agreed by the learned counsel for both the parties that it is the 1939 Act which applies to the present case and therefore there can be no manner of doubt that respondent No.6 has locus standi to oppose the application of the petitioner for grant of a fresh permit. In this view of the matter, the judgment of this Court in The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Guntur vs. E. Rama Rao and others - AIR 1991 AP 11 -which was rendered applying the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has no bearing on the case on hand." This finding has attained finality as the order in the said writ petition has become final. Therefore, respondent No.4 is not entitled to raise the plea of locus standi once over as the finding of this Court constitutes res judicata. On the basis of the discussion undertaken above, the inevitable conclusion that would emerge is that the order of the Tribunal suffers from a serious error, which is patent on record warranting exercise of Certiorari jurisdiction of this Court. The impugned order is accordingly quashed and order dated 27-1-1984 of respondent No.1 rejecting the application of respondent No.4 for grant of permit between Madakasira and Dorigallu stands confirmed. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.Nos.31774 and 33018 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous.