Judgment : The petitioner submitted an application in the year 2003, before the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor - the first respondent herein, with a request to grant pucca stage carriage permit for town service route from Mahaveer Talkies, Tirupathi to Seshachala Hill View Colony. The first respondent rejected the application through order dated 04.09.2006, observing that the proposed route is a new one and that the same has not been formulated as provided for under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules framed there under. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the first respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal -A.P.No.43/2007 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal - the second respondent herein (for short, the Tribunal)). The appeal was allowed through order dated 21.11.2008. The first respondent was directed to grant stage carriage permit within three months in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.02.2009 to the first respondent stating that though he is under obligation to produce the bus and place the relevant documents within three months from the date of the order of the Tribunal, he could not get the vehicle and prayed for extension of time by four months, to enable him to procure the vehicle. One year thereafter, the petitioner got issued a notice dated 15.02.2010 through an Advocate requesting the second respondent to take necessary action in compliance with the orders passed by the Tribunal. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to declare the inaction on the part of the first respondent in complying with the directions issued by the Tribunal through its order dated 21.11.2008, in the context of granting pucca stage carriage permit as illegal, unjust and unconstitutional and for a consequential direction to grant permit on the said route to the bus bearing No. T.C.H. 8133. Sri T. Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the direction issued by the Tribunal was to 'grant' permission in contradistinction to issuance of the permit and it is only when the permit is granted by the first respondent, that the petitioner would be under obligation to produce the bus, and to submit the documents for issuance of permit. He further submits that there was no justification on the part of the first respondent in not granting the permit so far. He further submits that there was no justification on the part of the first respondent in not granting the permit so far. Learned Government Pleader for Transport, on the other hand, submits that the result of the order passed by the Tribunal was that the petitioner was entitled to be issued permit and that would be possible, only when the vehicle and the relevant documents are produced. He further submits that the petitioner himself felt that the obligation to produce the vehicle and submit the documents arose soon after the Tribunal passed the order, and unable to comply with the same, he has submitted a representation dated 25.02.2009 with a prayer to extend the time, by four months. He contends that even within that period no steps were taken by the petitioner and at this stage, it is not at all possible to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal. The application submitted by the petitioner for grant of pucca stage carriage permit on a town service was rejected by the first respondent on the ground that the route applied for, is not an existing one and that the same has not been formulated, in accordance with law. This reasoning did not weigh with the appellate authority i.e., Tribunal and the appeal was allowed on 28.11.2008. Three months time was granted by the Tribunal for compliance. It is no doubt true, that distinction exists between the acts of 'grant' and 'issue' of permits, under Rule 192 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules'). The Regional Transport Authority is conferred with power to grant permits. Once permit is granted, the applicant has to produce the vehicle and other documents, immediately. It is only then, that the permit would be issued. Sub Rule 2 of Rule 192 of the Rules confers power upon the authorities under the Act to extend time for production of the vehicle and the documents by four months, and it is extendable by a further period of four months, for the reasons to be recorded. The petitioner, no doubt, was not granted the permit by the first respondent. However, once the appeal is allowed and the specific direction is issued to grant permit, nothing more was required to be done, in the context of granting permit. This was also the understanding of the petitioner. The petitioner, no doubt, was not granted the permit by the first respondent. However, once the appeal is allowed and the specific direction is issued to grant permit, nothing more was required to be done, in the context of granting permit. This was also the understanding of the petitioner. He felt that permit has already been granted through the order of the Tribunal and what is required to be done, is only to put the vehicle and submit the documents, for issuance of permit. Not being ready with this, he made a representation on 25.02.2009 with a prayer to extend time by four months, as provided under Rule 192(2) of the Rules. Having applied for extension, the petitioner did not take any further steps, even within eight months period, stipulated under that provision has elapsed. The petitioner got issued a notice dated 15.02.2010 through the Advocate. The notice is cleverly worded. It proceeds as though the request of the petitioner made through representation dated 25.02.2009 was only to require the first respondent to comply the order of the Tribunal. The relevant portion of the notice reads as follows:- "Soon after three months time mentioned in the order of the Appeal, our client sent representation to you on 25-2-2009 with a request to comply the order of the Appellate authority. Unfortunately there was no communication in this regard so far to our client." However, if one looks at the prayer made in the representation dated 25.02.2009, it would be clear as to how misleading, the notice is. Relevant portion of the representation reads as under:- "I submit that I have been trying to my best to put bus in the above route since from the date of tribunal orders and I am searching the vehicle on the route well in time. However I am taking interest in this connection to put to the bus on the route for since. As per order tribunal the time is expire on 28.02.2009. I therefore request your good authority to kindly permit me to extension of time valid up to another four months to enable me and I hope that my request may kindly be considered sympathetically" It is pleaded that no order was passed on the representation. The petitioner can have genuine grievance, if only he had produced the vehicle and documents within four months and the first respondent did not issue permit. The petitioner can have genuine grievance, if only he had produced the vehicle and documents within four months and the first respondent did not issue permit. Having failed to produce the vehicle and documents, as promised, the petitioner cannot throw the blame upon the first respondent. If the order passed by the Tribunal became incapable of being complied with, the blame clearly goes to the petitioner. Even as of now, the petitioner did not approach the first respondent indicating his readiness to produce the vehicle and to submit the documents. Obviously, realizing that the time for such a step has lapsed, the petitioner wants to throw blame on the first respondent in the matter of implementation of the order passed by the Tribunal. This Court does not find any basis to entertain this writ petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions filed in this writ petition shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.