Judgment

GROVER, J. :- These appeals have been brought by special leave from a judgment of the Mysore High Court.

2. The facts briefly are that in August 1964, the States of Mysore and Andhra Pradesh entered into a reciprocal agreement to introduce stage carriage service on the inter-State route from Bellary in Mysore State to Manthralaya in Andhra Pradesh via Chintakunta. In August 1965, the Regional Transport Authority, Bellary, called for applications for the grant of stage carriage permit for the aforesaid route. The appellant, respondents 7 and 8 and several others filed applications for the grant of a permit. After complying with the necessary formalities required under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called the Act , the Regional Transport Authority granted permits to the appellant and respondent No. 7 for one trip each day at its meeting held in August, 1966. By the time the Regional Transport Authority had issued the notification calling for the applications the scheme had been approved by the Government of Mysore under Section 68-D of the Act. Under this scheme which was popularly known as the Bellary Scheme and which came into force with effect from May 7, 1964 a portion of the road in question, viz., from Bellary to the district border (Chintakunta border) operators other than those mentioned in the scheme were totally excluded and only State Transport Undertaking could operate the services. The Mysore State Road Transport Corporation which was the State Transport Undertaking in Mysore, hereinafter called the State Corporation , B. Subba Rao, the appellant and certain other persons filed appeals before the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal. After hearing the appeals the Tribunal remitted the case to the Regional Transport Authority for a fresh disposal. Aggrieved by the remand order the appellant, the State Corporation and others filed appeals before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal. This Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant in its entirety and granted him a permit for the inter-State route with the condition that no passenger was to be picked up or set down on the portion of the road overlapping the notified route of the Bellary Scheme. The appeals of others were dismissed. Two writ petitions were filed before the High Court, one by the State Corporation and the other by B. Subba Rao challenging the order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal.

3. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on the ground.

"When once on a route or a portion of the route there has been total exclusion of operation of stage carriage services by operators other than the State Transport Undertaking by virtue of a clause in an approved Scheme, the authorities granting permit under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, should refrain from granting a permit contrary to the Scheme."

The High Court did not agree with the view of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal that even under a Scheme of total exclusion from Bellary to Chintakunta border a permit could be issued in respect of the overlapping portion of the inter-State route by making that permit ineffective. The High Court consequently directed a remand to the State Transport Authority to reconsider the matter and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

4. Although in the special leave petition there was no mention of a connected appeal which was pending in this Court, in the application for stay, it was state by the appellate that special leave had been granted in the case D. M. Thippeswamy v. The Mysore Appellate Tribunal Bangalore, AIR 1972 SC 1674 against the judgment of the Mysore High Court in which a similar view had been taken with regard to the scope and ambit of the Bellary scheme. It is common ground that by the time the petition for special leave came up for hearing before this Court that appeal had been dismissed. This led to the State Corporation filing a petition for revocation of special leave (C. M. P. No. 7383/72) on th