ORDER
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.
1. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) has filed this writ petition assailing the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (S.T.A.T.) by which the appeal of the third respondent herein was allowed granting permit to the third respondent to ply the bus on the modified town service route from old bus stand in Bhimavaram town to Lesari.
2. The facts of the case are as follows: The third respondent filed an application for grant of pucca stage carriage permit to ply the bus on town service route in Bhimavaram town. The route course is from Bhimavaram new bus stand to Lesari via Gollavanitippa, Gundlapadurevu and Barrivanipeta. After his application is filed before the Regional Transport Authority the second respondent herein, called for the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector. The Motor Vehicles Inspector gave report stating that the total length of the route in 20.4 K.Ms, within municipal limits 5.5 K.Ms, and beyond municipal limits 14.9 K.Ms, and RTC overlapping is 13.5 K.Ms. The overlapping is from Bhimavaram new bus stand to old bus stand. The extent of overlapping from new bus stand to old bus stand according to the Inspector of Motor Vehicles as per his report is 1.2 K.Ms, and according to APSRTC 1.5 K.Ms. The overlapping, whatever extent may be, from new bus stand to old bus stand is under the notified scheme in G.O.Ms. No. 782 dated 13-6-1972 relating to Machilipatnam to Visakhapatnam. Originally the third respondent filed the application for permit from new bus stand to Lesari. In view of the modified scheme in G.O.Ms. No. 782 dt. 13-6-1972 he modified his application and filed modified application requesting for grant of permit from old bus stand to Lesari. By modification the effect of G.O.Ms. No. 782 has gone. After the route is modified the total length of the route is 19.2 K.Ms., within municipal limits 4.3 K.Ms, and outside the municipal limits is 14.9K.Ms. and the total overlapping is 12.3K.Ms. This overlapping of 12.3 K.Ms, is subject to the approved scheme of G.O.Ms. No. 495 dated 20-9-1988. The Regional Transport Authority rejected the application of the third respondent. Against that, an appeal is filed before the S.T.A.T. The S.T.A.T. allowed the appeal and granted permit to the third respondent for the modified route subject to the ratification of overlapping by the Commissioner.
3. The learned Counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C. the writ petitioner firstly contended that there is overlapping of 12.3 K.Ms, whereas the scheme published in G.O.Ms. No. 495 dated 20-9-1988 permits overlapping of 8 K.Ms. Therefore the grant of permit is in violation of the scheme. It is secondly contended on behalf of the Corporation that the entire length of the route is 19.5 K.Ms, and the overlapping is 12.3 K.Ms. Further the route length outside the town is 14.9 K.Ms, and within municipal limits is 4.3 K.Ms. Therefore it is a mofussil route. Therefore the permit treating it as town service route cannot be granted.
4. The learned Counsel for the third respondent contended that the scheme published in G.O.Ms. No. 495 dt. 20-9-1988 exempts grant of permit to the holders of town service route and no condition is prescribed in respect of the holders of town service route prescribing length of overlapping. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in granting permit to the third respondent. He further contended that the route is town service route and it satisfied all the requirements of the Rule 258(2) (ii) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules and the Commissioner granted approval of the overlapping and therefore the permit was granted rightly by the first respondent appellate authority after considering all the aspects of the matter and therefore he prays that the writ petition may be dismissed.
5. In view of the rival contentions of the parties the important question that arises for consideration is whether the route in question can be termed as town service route or mofussil route ?
6. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was in force until the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (New) was passed which came into force from 1-7-1989. It is necessary to refer to some of the relevant provisions of the Act to properly appreciate the above contentions.
7. Section 2(38) of the M.V.Act, 1988 defines route as follows :
“”route” means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between on terminus and another.”
Section 2 (40) of the Act defines “Stage Carriage” as follows :
“”stage carriage” means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey.”
Section 99(1) of the New Act, 1988 provides that where any State Government is of the opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should he run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking whether to the exclusion, complete or partial of other persons or otherwise, the State Government may formulate a proposal regarding a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and other relevant particulars respecting thereto and shall publish such proposal in the Official Gazette of the State formulating such proposal and in not less than one newspaper in the regional language circulating in the area or route proposed to be covered by such scheme and also in such other manner as the State Government formulating such proposal deems. Sub-section (2) of Section 99 of the New Act, 1988 further provided that when a proposal is published under sub-section (1) then from the date of publication of such proposal, no permit shall be granted to any person except a temporary permit during the pendency of the proposal and such temporary permit shall be valid only for a period of one year from the date of its issue or till the date of final publication of the scheme under Section 100, whichever is earlier.
8. Section 100 (1) provides that on the publication of any proposal regarding a scheme in the Official Gazette and in not less than one newspaper in the regional language circulating in the area or route which is to be covered by such proposal any person may, within thirty days from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette, file objections to it before the State Government. Section 100(2) provides that the State Government after considering the objections and after giving an opportunity to the objector or his representatives and the representatives of the State Transport Undertaking to be heard in the matter, if they so desire, approve or modify such proposal. Sub-section (3) of Section 100 provides that the scheme relating to the proposal as approved or modified under sub-section (2) shall then be published in the Official Gazette by the State Government making such scheme and in not less than one newspaper in the regional language circulating in the area or route covered by such scheme and the same shall thereupon become final on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette and shall be called the approved scheme and the area or route to which it relates shall be called the notified area or notified route. These are the relevant provisions of the New Act, 1988 relating to publication of scheme and the restrictions for grant of permit on the notified routes.
9. Section 68-D of the Old Act is equivalent to Section 100 of the New Act. Section 68-C of the Old Act is equivalent to Section 99 of the New Act. Section 68-FF of the Old Act is equivalent to Section 104 of the New Act. Under the old Act the proposed scheme has to be published by the State Transport Undertaking whereas under the provisions of Section 99 of the New Act the scheme has to be published by the State Government. That change authorising the publication of the scheme is made in the new Act.
10. The above provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act enunciate that pucca permits are granted on the mofussil and town service routes after all the requirements are complied with. After the scheme is published permits shall not be granted without exemption from the Transport Commissioner as envisaged under Section 104 of the Act (New Act) which is equivalent to Section 68 (FF) of the Old Act. Section 104 of the New Act reads as follows:
” 104. Restriction on grant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route : Where a scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of Section 100 in respect of any notified area or notified route/ the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme.
Provided that where no application for a permit has been made by the State Transport Undertaking in respect of any notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, may grant temporary permits to any person in respect of such notified area or notified route subject to the condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of permit to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of that area or route :”
This section was conclusively dealt with by the Supreme Court in C. Kasturi v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, . wherein their Lordships held that once a notified Draft Scheme has been approved and published, the private operators operate their services on the notified route strictly in accordance with the scheme only and within the exceptions engrafted thereunder. This is the law on the subject.
11. In the present case the third respondent applied for grant of permit firstly from new bus stand in Bhimavaram town to Lesari. The total length of the route is 20.4 K.Ms. Thereafter he applied for permit modifying the route from old bus stand to Lesari, and the total length of the route is 19.2 K.Ms., within municipal limits 4.3 K.Ms, and outside the municipal limits 14.9 K.Ms, and the overlapping is 12.3 K.Ms.. He applied second time modifying the route as per the new scheme published in G.O.Ms. No. 495 dated 20-9-1988 and thus the route affecting overlapping as per G.O.Ms. No. 782 has been taken away. There is no dispute about this fact.
12. Town service route is defined in Rule 258 (2) (i) and (ii) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which reads as follows:
(2) The Regional Transport Authority shall subject to the following restrictions determine which are town service routes :
(i) atleast one terminus of every town service shall lie within the limits of a municipality of any built up place notified in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette as ‘town’ for this purpose by the Regional Transport Authority concerned, with the prior concurrence of the State Transport Authority.
(ii) No route of town service shall extend more than 8 Kilometres beyond the limits of the Municipality or Town from which it stands, provided that this restriction shall not apply to any town service routes, which were in existence on the date of coming of these rules into force or in respect of those routes for which specific permission of the Transport Commissioner is obtained.”
By reading of the above provisions it is manifest that a route to be termed as town service route should have atleast one terminus of every town service within Municipal limits or built up place as notified in the Gazette and the length of the route outside the Municipality should not be more than 8 Kilometres unless the same is permitted by the Transport Commissioner. At once it can be seen that there is no limitation on the power of the Commissioner is granting exemption beyond 8 kilometres and the length of the route for which Commissioner grants permission is also not limited. It is undisputed that one of the terminus is within the Municipal limits and also the fact that the route in the present case is more than 8 kilometers beyond the municipal limits i.e., 14.9 K.Ms. Before filing of the application for granting pucca permit for town service route the petitioner has not obtained any exemption from the Commissioner. However, after the State Transport Appellate Authority granted permission the third respondent applied for permission to the Transport Commissioner and it was granted before filing of the writ petition. Therefore the requirement of obtaining exemption from the Commissioner for the route to be termed as town service route beyond 8 kilometres of Municipal limits has been complied with. However, the learned Counsel for the Corporation contended that prior permission is a condition precedent for granting permit by the Regional Transport Authority or the Appellate Authority in appeal. Therefore the Appellate Authority ought not to have allowed the appeal permitting the petitioner to obtain exemption.
13. On the other hand it is contended by the learned Counsel for the third respondent that such requirement is not mandatory and in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in R. Vcnkaiah v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P. 1993 (1) APLJ 55 = 1993 (1) An.W.R. 26 (NRC). where in it was held as follows:
“If the application is for a town service route which is specified in the application and if the Regional Transport Authority grants permit/ the same will have to be submitted to the Transport Commissioner for according permission under Rule 258 (2) (ii) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 if the said town service route extends for more than 8 K.Ms. beyond the limits of the Municipality. When once the permission is accorded by the Transport Commissioner as per the abovementioned Rule, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority will have to automatically issue the permit. Before the permit is granted by the Regional Transport Authority, the applicant need not obtain permission of the Transport Commissioner under Rule 258 (2) (ii) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. In other words no prior permission need be accorded by the Transport Commissioner or obtained by the applicant from the Transport Commissioner or by the authority from the Transport Commissioner before the permit is granted.”
Again this Court in Writ Petition No. 6210 of 1982 and W.P.No. 2215 of 1983 speaking through his Lordship Justice Jeevan Reddy as he then was observed as follows:
“A reading of Section 282 (2) (ii) would indicate that before the Transport Commissioner could grant permission contemplated by Clause (ii) of sub- rule (2) there must be a route in existence, and as stated above a route comes into existence only when it is approved by the Regional Transport Authority. Therefore the argument that the permission of the Transport Commissioner must first be obtained before the route is approved by the Regional Transport Authority amounts to putting the cart before the horse. Of course the variation will be granted only after the Transport Commissioner granted the permission. Indeed the order of the Regional Transport Authority expressly mentions the stages in his proper order. It must also be treated that the Transport Commissioner’s permission is not necessary for opening a route. Even if he does not approve it will be a route though not a town service route.”
The principle laid down in the above judgment is that it is not mandatory to obtain prior exemption before granting permit and the exemption can be obtained even after obtaining permit from the Transport Authority. We are entirely in agreement with the above finding and confirm the same. Moreover in this case the Commissioner has already granted exemption before the Corporation filed this writ petition. Therefore the permit granted by the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be illegal. As per Rule 258 (2) (i) and (ii) one terminus must be within the municipal limits and where the route is beyond 8 K.Ms, outside Municipality, exemption from Transport Commissioner must be obtained. In the present case both the requirements are satisfied. Therefore we have to hold that the route in question is a town service route.
14. The learned Counsel for the Corporation, the writ petitioner herein, relied upon a decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 306/97 and batch decided by a Division Bench of this Court. In that case the approved scheme exempts the holders of the Stage Carriage Permit in respect of town service route. The applicant therein filed application for grant of permit for town service route and the length of the route is 25 K.Ms, and within the Municipality limits 2.5 K.Ms, and outside municipal limits 22.5 K.Ms. In those circumstances this Court held that almost the entire nationalised route is covered and it cannot be termed as a town service route and in such circumstances permit as town service route cannot be granted. In that case the grant of exemption by the Commissioner was not considered and further Rule 258(2) of the Rules and its effects were not considered. As such the judgment will not apply to the facts of the present case. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we have no hesitation to hold that the present route is town service route and permit was rightly granted to the third respondent by the Appellate Authority.
15. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that grant of permit is subject to the condition of the scheme as the scheme allows only grant of permit where overlapping is only 8 K.Ms, outside the municipal limits. To appreciate the above contention we have to scrutinise whether the permit is granted in accordance with the scheme or not. The scheme is published in G.O.Ms. No. 495 dt. 20-9-1988. The route is published for the mofussil service/ stage carriage permit. The scheme provides that the following number of round trips are proposed to be operated to the complete exclusion of all other persons holding stage carriage permits on the proposed route and such other persons holding stage carriage permits on the routes overlapping completely or partially on the proposed route except to the extent specified in the note hereunder. The scheme shall not affect (1) the State Transport Undertakings; (2) the holders of stage carriage permits in respect of town services; (3) the holders of stage carriage permits in respect of inter- State routes overlapping on the notified route; (4) the holders of stage carriage permits in respect of such route or routes overlapping not more than 8 K.Ms. on the notified route and (5) the services operated by Devasthanams. Commenting on conditions 2 and 4 the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that both the conditions must be read together and the overlapping imposed in condition No. 4 also to be read as one of the requirement prescribed for Condition No. 2 . We are not able to agree with the said contention. The Supreme Court in Kasturi’s case (1 supra) has laid down that grant of permit should be made strictly in accordance with the scheme. Therefore the condition providing exemption in the scheme must be read. By reading Condition No. 2 it is manifest that holders of stage carriage permit in respect of town service route are exempted. There is no indication to come to a conclusion that overlapping of 8 K.Ms, only is permitted where the scheme itself was not prescribed.
16. It is further contended that Condition No. 2 shows holders of stage carriage permit for town service route are exempted, which means the grant of permit to holders of permit only and not for others. This contention cannot be accepted. This Court in Writ Appeal No. 1325/92 held that holders of stage carriage permits also include stage carriage permits granted after notification of the approved scheme. This view is supported by the judgment of this Court in W.P. 10485/91. Therefore we see no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
17. Therefore in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case we do not see any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.