THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.11248 OF 2001 ORDER: The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 21.03.2001 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, ‘STAT’), Hyderabad, the ﬁrst respondent herein, in Revision Petition No.37 of 1999, conﬁrming the order dated 23.02.1999 of the Regional Transport Authority (for brevity, ‘RTA’), Srikakulam District, the second respondent herein, in Rc.No.1145/A1/99 Item No.41, rejecting the application of the original writ petitioner for variation of his existing route Adivaram Shandy to Nelavanka as Sompeta to Nelavanka. Be it noted that by virtue of the order dated 26.09.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.27573 of 2008 in W.P.No.11248 of 2001, Sri B.Jaya Prakash Narayana, the son-in-law of the original writ petitioner, Sri L.Narayana Murthy, was substituted as the petitioner herein, taking note of his averment that the subject stage carriage permit was duly transferred in his name by the RTA, Srikakulam District. The original writ petitioner was granted the pucca stage carriage permit bearing No.11/SKL/1994 on the moﬀusil route Adivaram Shandy to Nelavanka via Mukarampuram, Salinaputtuga and Kaviti, being a distance of 18.5 K.Ms. He applied for variation of the route, involving its extension from Sompeta to Adivaram Shandy via Kanchili R.S. and Ampuram Junction, in the year 1999. The same was rejected by the RTA, Srikakulam District, by its order dated 23.02.1999 and was confirmed in Revision by the STAT, Hyderabad, by its order dated 21.03.2001. Hence, the present writ petition. It is pertinent to note that the order dated 23.02.1999 of the RTA, Srikakulam District, rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking variation/extension of the existing route was appealable under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1988’) and the STAT, Hyderabad, ought not to have entertained the revision ﬁled by the petitioner herein under Section 90 of the said Act. However, it is to be noticed that no challenge has been raised on this ground before the STAT, Hyderabad or before this Court in the present writ petition. It would, therefore, not be proper for this Court to venture at this stage into the issue of maintainability of the Revision Petition before the STAT, Hyderabad. The fact remains that the STAT, Hyderabad entertained the said Revision and passed orders dated 21.03.2001 conﬁrming the order of the primary authority and the same is challenged before this Court. Accordingly, this Court proposes to deal with the matter on its merits. The orders of the primary and revisional authorities reﬂect that the rejection of the petitioner’s application for variation/extension of the existing route was wholly on the ground that the overlapping of the distance on the notiﬁed routes occasioned by the proposed variation/extension would be 14 K.Ms., far in excess of the 8 K.Ms. permitted under the approved scheme. Though reference was made to Section 80(3) of the Act of 1988 and Rule 180 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for brevity, ‘the Rules of 1989’), there is neither a discussion on facts nor a ﬁnding given by either of the authorities with regard to these provisions. The adjudication in the present writ petition is therefore limited to the ﬁndings of the authorities insofar as the extent of overlapping permitted under the approved scheme and the actual overlapping caused by the proposed variation/extension are concerned. It is the case of the petitioner that the ﬁnding of the primary and revisional authorities that the distance of overlapping is 14 K.Ms. and that the same is prohibited under the approved scheme under G.O.Ms.No.1160, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Tr.-V), dated 09.11.1987, is erroneous. The learned counsel, Sri T.Venkata Ramana, appearing for the petitioner would submit that the authorities failed to note that the approved scheme under G.O.Ms.No.1160 dated 09.11.1987 is in respect of three notiﬁed routes and as per the conditions mentioned in the scheme, exemption in respect of the overlapping is permitted to an extent of 8 K.Ms. with regard to each notiﬁed route. According to the learned counsel, the existing route overlaps a distance of 6.8 K.Ms. on the notiﬁed route Palasa to B.Gonaputtuga mentioned at clause (c) of the approved scheme and the proposed extension would overlap a distance of 7.2 K.Ms. on the other notiﬁed route Palasa to Koligam mentioned at clause (b) of the approved scheme. He would therefore submit that the extension of the route sought by the petitioner would not come within the prohibition stipulated under the approved scheme and consequently, the ﬁnding of the primary and revisional authorities cannot be sustained. Another ground raised in the writ petition is with regard to the applicability of the provisions of Section 104 of the Act of 1988 to the application made by the petitioner for variation of the existing stage carriage permit. It is contended that the said application cannot be treated as an application for grant of a fresh permit and Section 104 of the Act of 1988 would therefore not come into play. The further contention is that in any event, the proposed variation would not be hit by the provisions of the said Section. Sri T.Venkata Ramana would also contend that the authorities erred in relying upon Rule 180 of the Rules of 1989 as the said Rule is invalid in view of the provisions of Sections 70, 71 and 80 of the Act of 1988. He would submit that there is a compelling need to provide direct transport facility on the route Sompeta to Nelavanka and that the traveling public were put to great hardship and inconvenience owing to lack of such facility. Consequently, he prays for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders passed by the primary and revisional authorities. Separate counter aﬃdavits are ﬁled by the RTA, Srikakulam District and the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad. The learned Government Pleader for Transport, relying upon the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Srikakulam, on behalf of the RTA, Srikakulam, would contend that the orders under challenge do not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He would submit that the ﬁnding of the authorities to the eﬀect that the overlapping of the distance as per the proposed variation of the existing route would amount to 14 K.Ms. and that the same is in violation of the approved scheme in G.O.Ms.No.1160 dated 09.11.1987, is lawful and correct. He would contend that the three routes mentioned at clauses (a), (b) and (c) in G.O.Ms.No.1160 dated 09.11.1987 constitute one scheme and cannot be treated as separate schemes. Accordingly, the overlapping can be allowed only upto a distance of 8 K.Ms. and the proposed variation of the petitioner’s existing route resulting in overlapping of the distance to an extent of 14 K.Ms. would be in violation of the approved scheme and would therefore be prohibited under Section 104 of the Act of 1988. He would also rely upon Section 80(3) of the Act of 1988 and Rule 180 of the Rules of 1989 to support the validity and correctness of the orders under challenge. Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, learned standing counsel appearing for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad, the third respondent herein, relying upon the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Law Oﬃcer of the Corporation, would contend that the proposed variation of the petitioner’s existing route resulting in overlapping of the distance to an extent of 14 K.Ms. would be in violation of the approved scheme which only permits such overlapping upto 8 K.Ms. He would also rely upon Section 80(3) of the Act of 1988 and Rule 180 of the Rules of 1989 to support the orders under challenge. The learned standing counsel pointed out that suﬃcient bus facilities are being oﬀered by the third respondent- Corporation in the area and accordingly, the contention that the proposed extension of the petitioner’s existing route is in public interest, is denied. It would be apposite at this stage to examine the applicable statutory provisions and the approved scheme in G.O.Ms.No.1160 dated 09.11.1987. Section 2(1) of the Act of 1988 [corresponding to Section 2(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1939’)] deﬁnes “area” as follows: “2(1) “area”, in relation to any provision of this Act, means such area as the State Government may, having regard to the requirements of that provision, specify by notification in the Official Gazette;” Section 2(38) of the Act of 1988 [corresponding to Section 2(28-A) of the Act of 1939] defines “route” as follows: “2(38) “route” means a line of travel which speciﬁes the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another:” Chapter-V of the Act of 1988 deals with control of transport vehicles and provides for grant of stage carriage permits under Sections 70 to 72. Section 80 of the Act of 1988 provides for the procedure to be followed in applying for and granting of permits of any kind. For the purpose of this case, it would be relevant to peruse the provisions of Section 80(3) of the Act of 1988, [corresponding to Section 57(8) of the Act of 1939], which reads as hereunder: “80.Procedure in applying for and granting permits:–– (3) An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the speciﬁed maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area speciﬁed in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of new permit: Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route to increase the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vehicles: Provided further that,–– (i) in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres; (ii) in the case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres from the termini, and any such variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after the transport authority is satisﬁed that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof.” The above provision puts it beyond the pale of doubt that the application for varying the conditions of any permit, be it by way of variation, extension or curtailment of the route or area speciﬁed in the existing permit, shall be treated as an application for grant of a new permit. This view has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in L.RAGHURAMAN v. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD[1] and also a learned single Judge of this Court in C.KAVITHA v. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[2], and the issue, therefore, needs no further examination. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to the contra is therefore liable to be rejected. Chapter-VI of the Act of 1988 details the special provisions relating to state transport undertakings and Section 98 contained therein states to the eﬀect that the said Chapter would override the provisions of Chapter-V of the Act of 1988, including the various provisions pertaining to grant of stage carriage permits. Under Section 99 in Chapter-VI of the Act of 1988, the State Government is empowered to formulate a proposal regarding a scheme for providing road transport services in relation to any area or route or portion thereof, giving particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and other relevant particulars in respect thereof. This Section corresponds to Section 68-C of the Act of 1939. Under Section 68-C of the Act of 1939, it would be noticed that it is not the State Government which is authorized to formulate the scheme but the State Transport Undertaking itself. Section 100 of the Act of 1988 deals with the procedure to be followed by the State Government after the preparation of the scheme under Section 99 and provides under sub-section (3) thereof that, after the consideration of the objections received, if any, under sub-section (2) of Section 100, the scheme as approved or modiﬁed is to be notiﬁed in accordance with the procedure laid down therein and that the same would become ﬁnal and be called the approved scheme and the area or route to which it relates shall be called the notiﬁed area or notiﬁed route. This Section corresponds to Section 68-D of the Act of 1939. It is worthwhile to note that except for the fact that under the Old Act only three categories of persons/bodies were entitled to raise objections against the scheme while the New Act widens the scope by permitting such objections to be raised by any person, the provision, to the extent indicated above, remains essentially intact. Section 104 of the Act of 1988 is the bone of contention between the parties in the present litigation and it would be appropriate to extract hereunder the provisions thereof in their entirety: “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 a permit to the State transport undertaking in respect of that area or route.” This Section corresponds to Section 66-FF of the Act of 1939 and is identical therewith. The above provision makes it clear that the stage carriage permit has to be granted only in accordance with the provisions of the approved scheme prepared under Section 100(3) of the Act of 1988 corresponding to Section 68-D(3) of the Act of 1939. By virtue of the provisions of Section 80(3) of the Act of 1988, any variation or extension of an existing permit would also be governed by the same restriction. In MITHILESH GARG v. UNION OF INDIA [3] the Supreme Court held as follows: “7. ……… Even otherwise the liberal policy is likely to help in the elimination of corruption and favouritism in the process of granting permits. Restricted licensing under the old Act led to the concentration of business in the hands of few persons thereby giving rise to a kind of monopoly, adversely aﬀecting the public interest. The apprehensions of the petitioners, that too many operators on a route are likely to aﬀect adversely the interest of weaker section of the profession is without any basis. The transport business is bound to be ironed-out ultimately by the rationale of demand and supply. Cost of a vehicle being as it is the business requires huge investment. The intending operators are likely to be conscious of the economics underlying in the profession. Only such number of vehicles would ﬁnally remain in operation on a particular route as are economically viable. In any case the transport system in a state is meant for the beneﬁt and convenience of the public. The policy to grant permits liberally under the Act is directed towards the said goal……………” The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would place reliance upon the above paragraph and contend that in the light of this liberalized policy, the authorities ought to have considered the petitioner’s application for extension of the route, all the more so, as the same was in public interest and to avoid inconvenience to the traveling public. However, it is to be noted that the Supreme Court in its Judgment in RAM KRISHNA VERMA, ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS, ETC. ETC. [4] restricted the operation of the principle laid down in MITHILESH GARG’s case. The observations of the Supreme Court in this regard may be extracted: “13. It is true as contended by Shri Salve that in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 168 : (AIR 1992 SC 443), this court held that the liberal policy of grant of permits under Section 80 of the Act is directed to elimante corruption and favouritism in the process of granting permits, eliminate monopoly of few persons and making operation on a particular route economically viable and encourage healthy competition to bring about eﬃciency in the trade. But the free ply is conﬁned to grant of permits under Chapter V of the Act. By operation of Section 98 of the Act, Chapter VI overrides Chapter V and other law and shall have eﬀect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter V or any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having eﬀect by virtue of such law. The result is that even under the Act the existing scheme under the repealed Act or made under Chapter VI of the Act shall have overriding eﬀect on Chapter V notwithstanding any right given to private operators in Chapter V of the Act. No corridor protection to private operators is permissible.” It is therefore clear that the approved scheme notiﬁed under the provisions of Chapter-VI of the Act of 1988 shall be the paramount factor for consideration while granting/varying a permit under the provisions of Chapter-V of the Act of 1988. The factual issue raised by the petitioner with regard to the alleged lack of transport facility from Sompeta to Nelavanka and the submissions to the contra made by the learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent-Corporation, to the eﬀect that suﬃcient facilities are being provided by the Corporation, is not an issue amenable to judicial review in a writ petition. Further, it is for the State Government to make necessary and suitable modiﬁcations to the scheme in the event it feels that there is a shortfall in the service provided to the traveling public. Accordingly, this issue is eschewed from consideration in the present adjudication. The approved scheme in the present case was notiﬁed under Section 68-D(3) of the Act of 1939 under G.O.Ms.No.1160, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Tr.-V), dated 09.11.1987. By virtue of the provisions of Section 217(2)(a) and (e) of the Act of 1988, the said scheme is saved notwithstanding the substitution of the Act of 1939 by the Act of 1988. The nomenclature of the scheme in G.O.Ms.No.1160 dated 09.11.1987 is as follows: “Approved scheme of Road Transport Service published by the Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corporation relating to the Route Palasa –– Ichapuram Etc.” Thereunder the approved scheme is detailed as follows: “T HE SCHEME 1. Route (starting point and terminus a) Palasa – Ichapuram (via) Baruva, with important intermediate stations Sompeta,Edupuram, Bhirapuram route length). and Rajapuram (81 KMs) b) Palasa – Koligam (via) Baruva, Sompeta, Kanchili and Ichapuram (70KMs) c) Palasa – B.Gonaputtuga (via) Sompeta, Manikyapuram, Jagathi and Kaviti (62 KMs) 2. Area (Name of routes with starting D0. points and termini and intermediate stations and route length).” It is manifest that by way of the above approved scheme three routes viz. Palasa to Ichapuram, Palasa to Koligam and Palasa to B.Gonaputtuga were notiﬁed. The nomenclature used in the G.O. also supports the conclusion that the scheme was with regard to these three routes. Though, under clause (2) pertaining to Area, detailing the same as name of the routes with starting points and termini and intermediate stations and route length, the word “Do.” is indicated implying that the details stipulated in the scheme as against Route in clause (1) are to be replicated in toto, it cannot be disputed that the scheme is with regard to the notification of the three routes. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the manner in which the scheme was notiﬁed covering three routes, appears to be contrary to the scheme of Sections 99 and 100 of the Act of 1988 corresponding to Section 68-C and 68-D(3) of the Act of 1939. These provisions speak to the eﬀect that the scheme is to be with reference to an area or route proposed to be covered and such an approved scheme relating to such area or route shall be ﬁnal on the date of its publication. The provisions also state that the area or route to which the approved scheme relates shall be called the notiﬁed area or notiﬁed route. The provisions therefore do not envisage the clubbing of three separate routes as independent notified routes under a single scheme. It is noticed that the approved scheme relating to the route Visakhapatnam to Ichapuram notiﬁed under G.O.Ms.No.605, Home (Transport-V), dated 19.05.1975 supports this interpretation inasmuch as only a single route, Visakhapatnam to Ichapuram, is notiﬁed by way of the said approved scheme. However, there is no challenge to the approved scheme notiﬁed under G.O.Ms.No.1160 dated 09.11.1987 and the same has to be construed as it exists in the light of the statutory provisions. It is no doubt true that the three notiﬁed routes under the approved scheme in the present case originate from the same location, Palasa, and some of the locations through which the notiﬁed routes pass are common. The necessary implication of this would be that there is bound to be some amount of overlapping of the notiﬁed routes also. However, once the competent authority under the Act of 1939, being the State Transport Authority prepared such a scheme notifying the three routes, it is not for this Court to question the wisdom behind such a scheme. The approved scheme as it stands must therefore be accepted and acted upon. The intention of the said approved scheme being to notify three separate routes, Palasa to Ichapuram, Palasa to Koligam and Palasa to B.Gonaputtuga, as is manifest from the very nomenclature of the scheme is therefore to be accepted. Under Note-4 appended to the Scheme, it is stated that the scheme shall not aﬀect the holders of the stage carriage permits in respect of such route or routes overlapping not more than 8 K.Ms. on the notiﬁed route. In this Note, it would be necessary to recognize the fact that the phrase “route or routes” pertains to the route or routes covered by the stage carriage permit and the Note states that such route or routes under the stage carriage permit shall not overlap more than 8 K.Ms. on the notiﬁed route. The petitioner’s stage carriage permit from Adivaram Shandy to Nelavanka was obtained by him in the year 1994. Notes 2 and 3 appended to the approved Scheme pertain to existing stage carriage permits, i.e., stage carriage permits which were existing as on the date of the notiﬁcation of the approved scheme under G.O.Ms.No.1160 dated 09.11.1987 and have no application to the petitioner herein who obtained his permit long after the notiﬁcation of the approved scheme. He would place his case under Note-4 which has general application to all stage carriage permits and provides that the route or routes covered by such permits shall not overlap more than 8 K.Ms. on the notified route. The existing route covered by the petitioner’s stage carriage permit is from Adivaram Shandy to Nelavanka via Mukarampuram, Salinaputtuga and