ORDER
Bakthavatsalam, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, dated 30th day of December, 1987, approving the order of the State Transport Authority renewing the petitioner’s permit for three years which is upto 31st July, 1990.
2. The contention raised is that the Tribunal relied upon the Judgement of the Supreme Court in Yogeshwar Jaiswal v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors. and held that the Secretary, Transport Authority was entitled to renew the permit for a limited period only viz., three years. Ultimately the Tribunal held that the order of State Transport Authority does not call for interference.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues before me that the very same Tribunal has passed orders subsequently renewing the permits for four years in many cases and five years in certain cases and only in this case the petitioner has been granted permit only for three, years. The learned counsel contends that the Tribunal’s reasoning is wrong when the Tribunal relied upon the decision which is not applicable to the facts of this case.
4. Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provides for renewal of permits. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit, that is the permit shall be effective without renewal for such period not less than three years and not more than five years as the Regional Transport Authority may specify in the permit.
5. The Sub-section (2-A) introduced by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 47 of 1978 states.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Chapter, the Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for the renewal of a stage carriage permit, have regard also to the publication of a scheme under S.68-C in respect of service of stage carriages.
As such according to Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, permit may be renewed for a period of not less than three years and not more than five years. It is not in dispute than the route is covered by the draft scheme of nationalisation published, under section 58(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, on 18.10.78. Though the reasoning of the Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court may not be correct I do not think that any interference is called for by this Court as in may view Section 58 empowers the authority to renew the permit for a period of not less than three years and not more than five years. The Regional Transport Authority has rightly thought fit to renew the permit for three years which will be in force till July, 1990 in this case. I do not find any illegality in the order. It is always open to the petitioner to apply for a renewal of the permit as soon as it expires in July, 1990. Simply because the Tribunal in certain other cases thought fit to extend the permit for one more year say for four years it does not mean that the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous in law. It is not clear under what circumstances the Tribunal passed the orders renewing the permit for four years in other cases. I do not think the petitioner can as of right ask for renewal of the permit for five years even under provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. There are no merits in this Petition.
6. This petition is dismissed. No costs.