Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The respondent-writ petitioner approached the first appellant-Regional Transport Authority, Dharmapuri, seeking for extension of route from Pattalamman Koil to Mattukaranur Pirivu and applied for extension of the route from Four Roads to Dharmauri Town Bus Stand in his application dated 1. 2003. It was rejected by the first appellant-RTA, by order dated 8. 2003 on the ground that the respondent-writ petitioners route permit has already been operating in the served sector of a distance of 4 kms. The respondent-writ petitioner filed an appeal in Appeal No.959 of 2003 contending that the extension sought for is hardly 200 meters, which is highly negligible distance and therefore, the first appellant-RTA ought to have granted the extension. The second appellant-State Transport Appellate Tribunal, having dismissed the said appeal by judgment rendered on 27. 2005, the Writ Petition was preferred. The learned single Judge, having allowed the Writ Petition, giving reference to one or other direction given by the learned single Judge in one or other case, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred. 2. The respondent-writ petitioner was noticed with a clear intimation that the writ appeal would be disposed of at the stage of admission. He has appeared through counsel and filed counter affidavit opposing the appeal in question. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the respondent-writ petitioner had no right to ask for extension, nor there was any corresponding duty on the part of the appellants to grant such extension. In the absence of any illegality shown in the order of rejection, the learned single Judge ought not to have interfered with the same. Further, according to the counsel for the appellants, the learned single Judge had failed to take into consideration that as per G.O.Ms.No.1529, Home (Transport-III) Department, dated 111. 1999, the prescribed overlapping distance shall not exceed 4 kms served sector, since any extension would affect the other operators in the route. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner, as the extension of 0.2 kms. is too negligible distance, the learned single Judge directed to grant the extension sought for by the respondent-writ petitioner. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed the rival contentions. 5. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner, as the extension of 0.2 kms. is too negligible distance, the learned single Judge directed to grant the extension sought for by the respondent-writ petitioner. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed the rival contentions. 5. It has not been disputed that the respondent-writ petitioner had been granted permit to run a mini bus for the route in question for a distance of 20 kms with further overlapping distance of 4 kms. In view of G.O.Ms.No.1529, dated 111. 1999 issued from Home (Transport-III) Department, we are of the view that the learned single Judge ought not to have directed the first appellant-RTA to grant any extension beyond the overlapping distance of 4 kms. 6. So far as the order passed in one or other case, to which reliance has been placed by the learned single Judge, no law having been laid down, those orders cannot be relied upon to grant any relief for grant of permit for overlapping distance beyond 4 kms. We accordingly set aside the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.23430 of 2007, dated 12. 2008 and allow this Writ Appeal. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.