ORDER : 1. Petitioner herein is claiming himself to be the permit holder bearing No. 39/90-91. Admittedly, said permit was issued and operated from 7.3.1991 to 6.3.1996 and it was required to be operated after obtaining a counter signature of STA of Tamil Nadu since it was an interstate permit granted outside the interstate agreement with payment of tax to other State. 2. It is stated that said permit was challenged by respondent No. 2 – KSRTC by filing a Revision Petition No. 93/1991, which came to be disposed of by a common judgment dated 30.4.1993, wherein the permit which was granted to the petitioner herein to operate interstate route between Masthi and Bengaluru was set aside. The said judgment of STAT in Revision Petition No. 93/1991 was subject matter of challenge in WP. No. 33359/1995 on the file of a Coordinate Bench of this Court, which came to be dismissed by order dated 9.4.1997. Thereafter, said order of dismissal was subject matter of challenge in WA. No. 3999/1997, wherein a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 9.2.1999 confirmed the judgment passed by the STAT as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 33359/1995 in canceling the permit of the petitioner bearing No. 39/90-91. 3. So far as the petitioner herein is concerned, he accepted the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court as well as cancellation of his permit. However, the other persons, who were similarly placed as that of the petitioner in common judgment dated 30.4.1993 passed by the STAT in a batch of Revision Petitions and Appeal, had approached the Apex Court by filing a batch of SLPs, subsequently, converted into Civil Appeal Nos. 7435 to 7447/1993, which came to be dismissed by order dated 14.12.1993 thereby indicating that the order of the learned Single Judge in writ proceedings as well as the judgment of the Division Bench in writ appeal is confirmed in the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the aforesaid Civil Appeals. In that view of the matter, the judgment of STAT in canceling the permit of the petitioner in Revision Petition No. 93/1991 and other connected matters has reached finality in the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Civil Appeals, referred to supra. 4. In that view of the matter, the judgment of STAT in canceling the permit of the petitioner in Revision Petition No. 93/1991 and other connected matters has reached finality in the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Civil Appeals, referred to supra. 4. However, it is the case of the petitioner herein that subsequently, some of the persons who had lost their permits in the proceedings before STAT in the aforesaid batch of Revision Petitions and Appeal and who were along with him in the said proceedings had approached the STA by relying upon certain observations made by the Apex Court in aforesaid Civil Appeals, which was passed in the same set of proceedings indicating as if liberty is reserved to them to approach the authority independently to seek revival of their permit. The observations made by the Apex Court in the Civil appeals, referred to supra, are as under: “6. In the result, these appeals fail and are dismissed. We may, however, while dismissing these appeals, reiterate what was said in Adarsh Travels case that it is for the State to take steps so as to avoid any inconvenience to the public either by framing a proper legislation or by taking steps, as were pointed out in that decision.” 5. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by accepting the contentions of similarly placed persons as that of the petitioner herein, the STA is said to have revived the permits, which were cancelled by the STA at the first instance, confirmed by the STAT in a batch of Revision Petitions commencing from RP. No. 166/1990 and other connected maters by its order dated 30.4.1993 and consequently, said to have revived the permits which were cancelled by the STAT. 6. It is in this background that the petitioner is seeking to set aside the order dated 11.11.2011 vide Annexure-H in rejecting his application dated 3.2.2011 for renewal of stage carriage permit bearing No. 39/90-91, which was already dismissed in the year 1993 itself. He would further seek a direction of this Court to STA to consider his application in the same manner in which the applications of other persons are considered. 7. This Court is shocked and surprised to see the ingenuity in the method adopted by the stage carriage operators in hoodwinking the judicial orders. He would further seek a direction of this Court to STA to consider his application in the same manner in which the applications of other persons are considered. 7. This Court is shocked and surprised to see the ingenuity in the method adopted by the stage carriage operators in hoodwinking the judicial orders. When the judgment of the Apex Court in the Civil Appeals, referred to supra, is looked into, nowhere there is a slightest reference in authorizing the STA to reconsider the renewal of permits which were cancelled in the year 1993 and confirmed by the Apex Court in a batch of Civil Appeals filed challenging the concurrent decision of STA, STAT, the learned Single Judge in writ jurisdiction, which was confirmed in writ appeal. It is these decisions which are interpreted by the STA in such a manner as if it is authorized to consider renewal of the same. Admittedly, the authority has no right to renew the permits which were cancelled way back in the year 1993 itself. In fact, this is a serious lapse deliberately committed by the STA and it is unfortunate that the State has deliberately turned a blind eye to this. 8. In that view of the matter, it is high time that the Secretary of Transport Department wakes up to this and initiate an enquiry into the matter and take appropriate steps to punish the concerned, who have violated the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in confirming the cancellation of series of permits, which are clandestinely revived by relying upon a stray observation in the judgment of the Apex Court in the Civil Appeals, referred to supra, which does not even remotely authorize the STA to usurp the power of renewing the permits which are dead and gone long back. 9. Further, it is surprising that the learned counsel for the petitioner is expecting the mistake of the STA in reviving the permits which were rejected long back to be committed by this Court. It only reflects the sorry state of affairs in STA proceedings. Therefore, this Court would observe that appropriate steps shall be taken by the STA to ensure that the order of the Apex Court in a batch of Civil Appeals in Nos. It only reflects the sorry state of affairs in STA proceedings. Therefore, this Court would observe that appropriate steps shall be taken by the STA to ensure that the order of the Apex Court in a batch of Civil Appeals in Nos. 7435-7447/1993, disposed of on 14.12.1993 in confirming the cancellation of permits which was ordered by the STAT in Appeal No. 55/1990 and batch of Revision Petitions commencing from R.P. No. 166/1990 and other connected matters, disposed of by order dated 30.4.1993 and confirmed throughout up to Apex Court, is adhered to. 10. With aforesaid observations, this writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the Secretary, Transport Department, shall take serious view of this matter, initiate enquiry proceedings, conclude the same within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, to place the outcome of said enquiry before this Court. 11. Registry to send a copy of this order to the Secretary of Transport Department as well as to STA for compliance.