Judgment : 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25th October, 1989 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Maharashtra State, Bombay, in Revision Application No. 8 of 1989. 2. Upon perusal of the pleadings in the petition, it appears that the petitioner was holding at the relevant time permit No. T.Opp.3027/Aug/84, which was valid up to 26th September, 1987, in respect of M.V. No. MTS 2411. He applied for replacement of the vehicle by higher model, three months before the expiry of the permit. He was permitted to replace the vehicle and 90 days time was allowed by order dated 30th June, 1987. Without taking any steps, the applicant on 01.01.1988 submitted an application to extend the period, but his application was not considered as there was policy of the R.T.O. to grant maximum period of 150 days for the replacement. The request of the petitioner was turned down in view of the policy decision. Said order is dated 28th October, 1988 3. Aggrieved by order dated 28.10.1988 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, the petitioner herein filed Revision Application before the Appellate Tribunal. It is contention of the petitioner that the Tribunal allowed extension to replace vehicle to the similarly situated persons. Since similarly situated persons are granted time, same benefit may be given to the petitioner by extending time for replacement of the vehicle. However, it appears that the Divisional Authority did not agree with the statement of the petitioner that because the time is extended in similarly situated cases, the same benefit should be extended in the case of the petitioner. It further appears from the perusal of the reasons recorded by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that merely because Reference Application No. 7 of 1989 was rejected, the Presiding Officer, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, came to the conclusion to reject the revision filed by the petitioner. Therefore, aggrieved by said order, this petition is filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has taken as many as seven grounds in the petition. 4. The petition was heard for admission by this Court on 14.12.1992, when this Court was pleased to issue rule and interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C). Therefore, aggrieved by said order, this petition is filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has taken as many as seven grounds in the petition. 4. The petition was heard for admission by this Court on 14.12.1992, when this Court was pleased to issue rule and interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C). Prayer clause (C) reads thus:- “Pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition the R.T.O. Aurangabad may kindly be directed to issue the permit to the petitioner for his Auto Rickshaw bearing No. MWN 6867, Auto Rickshaw Model 1982 and said permit of Auto Rickshaw be renewed from time to time.” 5. It further appears from the perusal of order that on 20th January, 1993, this Court granted leave to amend the petition and also the prayer clause (C). In clause (4) of the said order this Court clarified that the petitioner will not get any vested right to continue autorickshaw permit because of the interim relief it is subject to the final disposal of the writ petition. It was further directed that since auto rickshaw model of the petitioner is older than what is permissible by the authority, the petitioner will present his auto rickshaw to the authorities for inspection once after every three months. 6. Therefore, on perusal of order dated 20th January, 1993, it appears that conditional interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner subject to producing auto rickshaw for inspection once after every three months. Therefore, the Regional Transport Authority after satisfying the norms was to be issued permit in favour of the petitioner. 7. The learned A.G.P appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner has been issued permit and the purpose of the petitioner is fully served. The respondents have no grievance if the petition is disposed of, since already the permit is issued to the petitioner. Said statement is made by learned A.G.P. relying on the written communication by the authority to him. The learned A.G.P. has made available copy of the permit register for perusal of this Court, which shows that on 21.01.1993 permit is given to the petitioner. It appears from the perusal of the said extract that the earlier vehicle was replaced by MH 20 F 2550. 8. The learned A.G.P. has made available copy of the permit register for perusal of this Court, which shows that on 21.01.1993 permit is given to the petitioner. It appears from the perusal of the said extract that the earlier vehicle was replaced by MH 20 F 2550. 8. Therefore, on perusal of the pleadings in the petition and after hearing the learned A.G.P. for the State, I am of the opinion that this petition can be disposed of in the light of the statement of learned A.G.P., which is stated herein above. Since the permit is granted to the petitioner, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.10.1989 is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute to above extent. The petition stands disposed of.