PANDIYAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION LTD. vs THIRU M.A. EGAPPAN

The Supreme Court held that Section 68-F(1-D) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 does not bar applications for variation of a permit, as such applications are not classified as applications for fresh permits or their renewal. The Court clarified that the principle underlying Section 68-F(1-D) is to freeze the number of services on a route upon the publication of a scheme under Section 68-C, and this includes variations of existing permits. The appeal was allowed, affirming the High Court's decision that the respondent's application for variation was valid.