JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri R.N. Singh and Shri B.D. Mandhyan, Senior Advocates assisted by Shri G.K. Malviya for the petitioner and Shri Navin Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri H.P. Dube, Shri A.R. Dubey and Shri S.N. Jaiswal appear for the contesting respondents. Learned Standing Counsel was heard for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Chairman, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow (STAT) by which the Appellate Tribunal has allowed the 37 revision petitions filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 39 on December 28th, 2007 and has set aside the order dated 15.10.2004 by Regional Transport Authority, Saharanpur. The Appellate Tribunal has allowed the applications for extension of the route from Bahsuma to Raffankalan via Ganeshpur-Mawanakalan. 3. The respondent No. 12 had filed a caveat application on 5.2.2008. The Court issued notice to 36 other respondents : “Heard Shri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate and Shri B.D. Mandhyan, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri G.K. Malviya and Shri G.K. Singh for the petitioner and Shri Navin Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri H.P. Dube for respondent No. 12. There are 36 other respondents, who will need to be served as all the revisions were allowed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner is permitted to take steps to serve them within a week. The petitioner is also permitted to advertise this writ petition in daily newspaper ‘Amar Ujala’ published from Meerut within a week, fixing the time for filing counter affidavit on or before 19th February, 2008 and for hearing the petition on 25th February, 2008. Shri Navin Sinha appearing for respondent No. 12 prays for and is granted two weeks to file counter affidavit. The petitioner will have three days thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List this matter for hearing on 25th February, 2008. The short question, which calls for consideration in this case, is, whether the distance of 24 Kms fixed by the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 80 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, will be the total maximum extension, to be granted in case of more than one applications. The question also calls for consideration the object and purpose of providing maximum limit, when every such application is to be treated for grant of new permits with an overriding consideration of convenient of general public. The question also calls for consideration the object and purpose of providing maximum limit, when every such application is to be treated for grant of new permits with an overriding consideration of convenient of general public. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment in Unni Nair v. R.T.A. and others, decided by Kerala High Court in which the Court drew the ‘obvious consequence’, that if extensions granted exceed the total extension to 24 Kms, the legislative intent will be frustrated. It is contended by the respondents that this judgment does not take into consideration the other factors provided in sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act.” 4. An affidavit of service was filed annexing therewith a copy of newspaper ‘Amar Ujala’ dated 12th February, 2008 publishing the notice in response to which appearance was filed by Shri H.P. Dubey for respondent No. 12, Shri S.N. Jaiswal for respondent Nos. 5, 10, 16, 23, 32 and 36 and Shri A.R. Dube for respondent Nos. 19, 22, 26 and 29. The notices were also sent to other respondents by registered post. They have been served by publication. Shri H.P. Dube, Shri S.N. Jaiswal and Shri A.R. Dubey have filed their counter affidavits to which rejoinder affidavits have been filed. With the consent of parties, the writ petition was heard at the admission stage and is being finally decided. 5. Briefly stated the facts are that within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Saharanpur there is route known as Muzaffar Nagar to Behsuma via Meeranpur. There are at present 37 regular stage carriage permits operating on the route. Initially the distance of the original route from Muzaffarnagar to Meeranpur was 37 kms. The then Regional Transport Authority, Saharanpur by his resolution dated 23/24/25 August, 1954 granted an alleged extension under Section 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to a portion of 13 kms. The existing operators applied in 1972 for alleged extension of a portion of the route from Meeranpur to Kutubpur to Nunikhera a portion of 15 kms. It was granted by resolution of RTA, Meerut dated 15/16th November, 1972. Again in 1976 it is alleged that further extension of the route was granted from Ramraj to Ahmadwala, a portion of 15 kms. by RTA Meerut in its meeting dated 9/10/11/12 November, 1976. It was granted by resolution of RTA, Meerut dated 15/16th November, 1972. Again in 1976 it is alleged that further extension of the route was granted from Ramraj to Ahmadwala, a portion of 15 kms. by RTA Meerut in its meeting dated 9/10/11/12 November, 1976. It is stated that in this manner the original route of 37 kms., was extended by 43 kms. and was converted into route of 80 kms. 6. Once again in the year 1996 the RTA, Meerut allowed extension of the route from Bahsuma to Mawana. This application was rejected by RTA, Meerut on 16.1.1997. It is alleged that this order was not challenged. The 37 operators again made an application allegedly without disclosing the earlier rejection, for extension of route from Bahsuma Raffankalan, four kilometers ahead from Mawana. The petitioner holding regular stage carriage permit No. 3833 for the route Meerut, Bijnor via Mawana -Bahsuma-Ramraj-Meerapur-Dewal, filed detailed objections against the extension of route from Behsuma to Raffankalan. The RTA, Saharanpur in its meeting dated 15.10.2004 allowed the objections and rejected the application, on the ground that the portion is purportedly served by the vehicles of the petitioner’s route as well as vehicles of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and the granting of extension will unnecessarily cause litigation, which will not be in public interest. 7. It is stated that the revision under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is maintainable within a period of 30 days. However, after lapse of three years separate revisions were filed under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the order dated 15.10.2004, without any application for condonation of delay. An application was, thereafter, filed alongwith affidavit on the ground that the revisionist had engaged Shri Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate to file revisions and had given him the certified copy of the orders. Shri Shashi Bhushan Singh informed the revisionists that the revisions were filed and are pending before the Tribunal. An application was, thereafter, filed alongwith affidavit on the ground that the revisionist had engaged Shri Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate to file revisions and had given him the certified copy of the orders. Shri Shashi Bhushan Singh informed the revisionists that the revisions were filed and are pending before the Tribunal. Shri Sahshi Bhushan Singh died on 11.11.2006 and that when Shri Sandeep Kumar, the Secretary of the Union, whose father Shri Rajendra Singh is also a member and existing operator of the route, was informed about the death, he reached Lucknow and was astonished to find on 31.8.2007 that Late Shri Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate did not file the revisions and that in the circumstances, the delay, which prevented the petitioner to file revisions was beyond their control. It is alleged that hearing of the revisions was concluded on 28.12.2007. They moved an application for further one week’s time to file documents. The revisions, however, were decided and were allowed on the same day on 28th December, 2007. 8. Shri R.N. Singh, Sr. Advocate and Shri B.D. Mandhyan, Sr. Advocate would contend that the extension of the route is in violation of Section 80 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act). The observation that respondent Nos. 3 to 39 were not granted any extension in the past is factually incorrect. The question of limitation could not be re-examined by the Tribunal and that the extension was not in public interest. In Unni Nair v. R.T.A. and others, 1991 (2) Ker LJ 140, the Kerala High Court has taken the view that under Section 80 (3) of the Act the maximum extension of 24 kms. can be granted and that any further extension will make the provisions of Section 80 (3) of the Act, redundant. The order dated 28.12.2007 is an antedated order delivered on 31.12.2007 as Shri S.S. Raudra, Chairman of the Tribunal was retired on 31.12.2007. 9. Shri Navin Sinha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri H.P. Dube for the respondents defended the order by stating that Meerut-Muzaffarnagar and Meerut-Bijnor are two different routes. The contesting respondents are existing operators at Muzaffarnagar Behsuma via Meeranpur-Ramraj route. The existing operators of this route applied for extension from Behsuma to Raffan Kalan (17 kms.). 9. Shri Navin Sinha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri H.P. Dube for the respondents defended the order by stating that Meerut-Muzaffarnagar and Meerut-Bijnor are two different routes. The contesting respondents are existing operators at Muzaffarnagar Behsuma via Meeranpur-Ramraj route. The existing operators of this route applied for extension from Behsuma to Raffan Kalan (17 kms.). The RTA, Saharanpur in its meeting dated 15.10.2004, considered these applications alongwith the objections of the existing operators on the route of Meerut-Bijnor and other allied routes through its Secretary Shri Hazi Mohd. Iliyas. The applications for grant of extension from Bahsuma to Raffankalan was rejected on 15.10.2004. Aggrieved revisions were filed, which were contested by the petitioner. All the revisions were clubbed together and were decided by common judgment on 28.12.2007. 10. Shri Navin Sinha submits that the basis of the argument that the answering respondent and other existing operators have been granted extension on more than one occasion and thereby the total extensions have added upto the extent of 43 kms. converting the route of 37 kms., to 80 kms., is factually incorrect. So far as respondent No. 12 is concerned and the other respondents, who are also similarly situate (though the dates of extensions are different), permissions have been granted on the same route but the extension in length is only on one route. The earlier permissions were not ‘extensions’ but ‘variations’, which is also provided under Section 80 (3) of the Act, and that such variations are not to be clubbed for finding out the maximum limit of the extension of the route. In 1954 the permission of 13 kms. was granted from Meeranpur to Behsuma. In 1972 permission was given for variation from Meeranpur to Noonikhera. It was not an extension but a variation of 15 kms. In 1976 again permission was granted for variation from Ramraj to Ahmadwala for 15 kms. and that in the year 2004 the route from Muzaffarnagar to Meeranpur was extended to 13 kms. It was further extended after 50 years from Bahsuma to Raffankalan for 17 kms. It is submitted that the assertion that the route of 37 kms. have been extended to 80 kms. is incorrect as initially permission given on the route of Muzaffarnagar Bahsuma Meeranpur Ramraj was 50 kms. in length. The contesting respondents as existing operators. They had a right for apply for extension from Bahsuma to Raffankalan. It is submitted that the assertion that the route of 37 kms. have been extended to 80 kms. is incorrect as initially permission given on the route of Muzaffarnagar Bahsuma Meeranpur Ramraj was 50 kms. in length. The contesting respondents as existing operators. They had a right for apply for extension from Bahsuma to Raffankalan. Their earlier applications were rejected on 16.1.1997, several years ago on the question of need, when a large number of operators were operating on the route. 11. Shri Sinha would submit that the Tribunal had powers to condone the delay and had exercised the discretion to serve the ends of justice. It has given good and sufficient reasons for grant of extension namely that (a) initially 150 vehicles were plying on the route. The circumstances have completely changed and that 80 vehicles have been estopped by RTA. With increase of population and rush of people to visit the place of pilgrimage at Hastinapur, the need has increased. For public convenience the extension is essential; (b) Meeranpur was never within the route of revisionist. The route of revisionists is from Muzaffarnagar to Bahsuma and that the revisionists had never sought any extension on this route; (c) the total extension of the route does not appear to go beyond 24 kms. in all; (d) the applications were rejected earlier on the ground that there was sufficient traffic on the route. The objector had no objection in case direct bus service is granted to the residents of Sikera-Jansath -Mawana, which shows that there was no legal hindrance in allowing the extension but the consideration was adequate number vehicle on the route, which changes by the change of circumstances. The short extension does not come within the purview of creating a route or a new route; (e) the application for extension, which does not exceeds 24 kms. cannot be regarded as application for new permit; (f) the total length of the extended route is 17 kms., and the route is non-notified. The provisions of Section 80 (3) are as such not violated; (g) the private vehicle are not plying directly from Muzaffarnagar to Mawana. cannot be regarded as application for new permit; (f) the total length of the extended route is 17 kms., and the route is non-notified. The provisions of Section 80 (3) are as such not violated; (g) the private vehicle are not plying directly from Muzaffarnagar to Mawana. There was no extension on this route granted earlier by RTA; (h) the application is in public interest as the Jainees place of pilgrimage at Hastinapur falls on the same route, and that the extension will serve the convenience of the public as there is no direct service from Muzaffarnagar Sikhera Kawal Jansath and Salarpur upto Raffankalan-Mawana Kalan. 12. In the end Shri Navin Sinha submits that the petitioner do not have right to object as according to the information received from the Asstt. Regional Transport Officer (Admn.)/the Public Information Officer, Meerut dated 18.2.2008 the petitioner himself has been allowed 13 extensions. Para 3 of the letter giving details of these 13 extensions is as follows : Sl. Dates on which Extension given to the petitioner Length of No. the extension by the concerned RTA extension has been granted 1. 21.3.1966 Makdoompur-Mawana-Flauda 25 K.M. 2. 22.7.1971 Mawana-Nagla-Jai Singhpur 12 K.M. 3. 9.11.1976 Bahadurpur to Ahamdwala 9 K.M. 4. 2/3.12.85 Madana to Rahawati 12 K.M. 5. 8.4.1987 Saina to Kastala 6 K.M. 6. 6.6.1993 Rani Nagla-Nagla-Chandpur- 12 K.M. Pali-Saifpur-Ikwara-Ganjpura 7. 11.5.1994 Kaul to Bahesuma 9 K.M. 8. 17.1.1996 Mahlaka-Sakauti via Nagla-Sadhu 6 K.M. 9. 3.6.1998 Kastala to Shajadpur 2 K.M. 10. 23.12.1998 Lawar to Daurala 6 K.M. 11. 16.2.2000 Mawana-Agwanpur-Nagla-Sathla 6 K.M. 12. 14.3.2002 Sardhana-Sakauti 14 K.M. 13. 16.6.2004 Lawar-Meethpur-Dedva-Sofipur- 16 K.M. Begumpul 13. In para 8 of the rejoinder affidavit of Shri Hazi Mohd. Iliyas the contents of para 9 is replied by stating that the petitioner has been given 13 extensions detailed as above. He has not denied these extensions. It is stated in this paragraph : “That the contents of paras 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit are incorrect, wrong, hence are denied. In reply it is submitted that the grant of extension in favour of the petitioner has never been objected or challenged by any person before any competent Court of law. Moreover the interpretation put forward by the respondent is not acceptable.” 14. In reply it is submitted that the grant of extension in favour of the petitioner has never been objected or challenged by any person before any competent Court of law. Moreover the interpretation put forward by the respondent is not acceptable.” 14. The Kerala High Court in Unni Nayar (supra) interpreted Section 80 (3) of the Act and held that if various extensions are granted by RTA, which take the total extension beyond 24 kms. the legislative intent for fixing the number for the extension will be frustrated. Any interpretation, which would flout the clear intention expressed by legislature must be avoided. 15. In M/s Shiv Chand Amolak Chand v. Regional Transport Authority and another, AIR 1984 SC 9 , the Supreme Court while interpreting the provisions of the corresponding section in the old Act found that sub-section (8) of Section 57 following sub-section (3) to (7) is part of same scheme for considering and grant of application for permit. When an application to vary conditions of a permit by inclusion of new route or routes or new area or by increasing the number of trips by altering the route is given, it shall be treated as an application for grant of a new stage carriage permit making applicable the procedure set out in the provisions of sub-section (3) to (7). The context in which sub-section (8) occurs, and its juxta position with sub-section (3) to (7) in Section 57, clearly indicates that what is sought to be made applicable to an application referred to in sub-section (8) by treating it as an application for grant of new permit, is the procedure set out in sub-section (3) to (7) of Section 57 and nothing more. Section 47 (3) requires the number of stage carriages for which the permits may be granted at any particular route must be first determined before any application is entertained under Section 48. This obviously is not a condition precedent for sub-section (8) of Section 57. Such an application as such is not an application for new permit. After the amendment the new procedure under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been liberalized to such an extent that an intended operator can get permit for asking, irrespective of the number of operators in the field. The scheme envisaged under Section 57 of the old Act has been completely done away by the new Act. After the amendment the new procedure under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been liberalized to such an extent that an intended operator can get permit for asking, irrespective of the number of operators in the field. The scheme envisaged under Section 57 of the old Act has been completely done away by the new Act. There is no limit for grant of permit at a route by RTA. Sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act provides : “An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit, shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit.” 16. Sub-section (3) of Section 80 provides for many conditions of the permit, other than temporary permit, namely inclusion of new route or new area by altering the route or routes or area, increasing the number of trips above specified maximum or by variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes, to be treated as an application for the grant of new permit. In case of variation sub-clause (i) provides that termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by variation shall not exceed 24 kms.; (ii) in the case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed 24 kms. from the termini, and any such variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after the Transport Authority is satisfied that such a variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of original route, as so varied or extended or any part thereof. The application as such treated as application for grant of new permit, shall not be required to confirm to the grant of separate permit. The variation, extension or curtailment have been treated to be separate conditions. The application as such treated as application for grant of new permit, shall not be required to confirm to the grant of separate permit. The variation, extension or curtailment have been treated to be separate conditions. Whereas Clause (i) provides that in case of variation the termini shall not be altered and the distance shall not exceed 24 kms., Clause (ii) provides that in case of extension the distance covered by extension shall not exceed 24 kms. from termini. The legislative intent appears to be very clear. In case of variation and extension the application shall not be treated to be an application for grant of a separate permit in respect of original route so as to vary or extend or any part thereof. In case of variation the termini are not to be altered and in case of extension the maximum distance has to be counted from the termini. The variation as such may be either way from the route but the extension has to be in a straight line. Both the variation and the extension have to be understood with reference to a route, which is defined under Section 2 (38) of the Act as a line of travel, which specifies the highway, which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one termini and another. 17. In Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 443 , the Supreme Court emphasized the purpose of enactment of the Act and held that the grants have to be made liberally, and more operators invite healthy completive and effective transport system. A note of caution, however, was put by this Court to the liberalism in Surendra Rao v. Regional Transport Authority, Gorakhpur, AIR 1992 All 211 , in which it was held that area or route cannot be permitted to be converted into a racing ground for heavy vehicles in order to pick up more passengers enroute and thereby exposing both the persons and property to a great danger. It was further held in Shamim Haider and another v. RTA, Meerut and another, AIR 1995 All 385 , that grant of permit should take into consideration all the relevant factors at the time of exercising the jurisdiction, which is quasi judicial in nature, and that it has to keep a watch on the erroneous, illegal exercise of power in granting permits under the liberalization. These judgments were cited with the approval in M.K. Jain v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 2004 All 33 . 18. The variation or extension within such limits as provided in sub-section (i) and (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 80 is subject to overriding condition of serving the conveniences of the public. 19. In the present case it is found that the ground of condonation of delay of the revisions under Section 90 of the Act were good and sufficient and were expressly condoned by the Appellate Tribunal under the second proviso to Section 90 by the order dated 11.10.2007, which does not call for any interference. 20. The submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the extensions cannot be granted beyond maximum 24 kms. from the termini, is factually incorrect. The Appellate Tribunal held that there is neither any record of the earlier extension sought by the revisionist, nor there is any endorsement of any extension on the permit of the revisionist. They are plying their vehicles on the same route for the last 50 years. There is no evidence on record of earlier extension of the route sought by the revisioninst and thus the judgment of Kerala High Court does not apply. The order by which the RTA rejected the application does not give the reason that there was an application for extension, which may take the route beyond 24 kms. The RTA rejected the application in its meeting dated 15.10.2004 on the ground that there were sufficient number of buses available on the route and that it was not necessary to create unnecessary competition. The STAT, U.P. clarified the position and has found, that there are only 38 stage carriage permits on the route, which is sought to be extended. Earlier there were 150 permits but the circumstances have completely changed and that 80 vehicles on the route have been stopped by RTA. The increase in population and the need of the people to visit the place of pilgrimage at Hastinapur has increased the need for more vehicles. The STAT has clearly found that the applications were not for extension. The earlier applications were for variation of the route and not for extension and that the total extension of the route will not go beyond 24 kms. The STAT has clearly found that the applications were not for extension. The earlier applications were for variation of the route and not for extension and that the total extension of the route will not go beyond 24 kms. It has also found that the consideration of the convenience of the public on the route overrides the objections. The finding recorded in para 12 reads as follows : “On perusal of the impugned order it appear that admittedly the distance of the route is admitted as disclosed by the revisionists and there is no objection to the convenience of the public on the route. The total extension of the route does not appear to go beyond 24 Kms. in all.” 21. The findings recorded by the STAT have not been specifically challenged. In the entire body of the writ petition it is nowhere stated, nor the details of the earlier applications are given to contradict that the earlier applications were for variations, and that the present applications were for extension, which did not exceed 24 kms. and that the overriding consideration was not the public interest. 22. The petitioner has made an attempt to suggest that since the Chairman of STAT was retiring on 31st December, he has backdated the judgment and pronounced it on 28th December, 2007. There is no foundation for this argument. It appears to be taken just to create a cloud over the exercise of powers. The person, who comes to the Court must come with clean hands. When the petitioner himself was beneficiary of repeated extensions, which according to his own argument would not be valid, he should have been careful to challenge the extension granted to the respondents. It is not denied that as against 150 stage carriages only 38 were operating on the route causing inconvenience to the travellers and that public interest would be served in the grant of extension. 23. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ————