Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the State Transport Corporation. 2. The third respondent was issued a mini bus permit by the first respondent in his proceedings dated 17.12.2007 on the Chettipatti to Katheri Pirivu route. 3. This writ petition is questioning the aforesaid proceedings dated 17.12.2007, on the ground that the permit granted was contrary to the norms as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.1530, Home (Transport III) Department, dated 17.11.1999. 4. The third respondent has filed counter affidavit, refuting the allegations. 5. It is averred that the writ petition is hit by latches, since the petitioner has chosen to question the order after five years. Secondly, it is stated that a remedy is provided under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the petitioner could prefer a Revision Petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Thirdly, it is stated that the disputed question of facts are involved and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Fourthly, it is stated that even, if the petitioner covers more than the served area, the same could be curtailed by the competent authorities. 6. Heard both sides. 7. I am not going into the merits of the issue. The third respondent was granted permit for operating mini bus on the Chettipatti to Katheri Pirivu route in the year 2007, by the first respondent, in the order dated 17.12.2007. This writ petition has been filed after five years. No reason is given for inordinate delay in approaching this Court. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a statutory remedy is provided under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the order of the first respondent granting permit. 8. Hence, I am of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable as the same was filed after five years, after issuance of the impugned order. 9. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.