JUDGMENT

RANGANATHAN, J.:- These are two batches of 19 appeals each. One set of appeals has been filed by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) and the other set of appeals has been filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh. Both the sets of appeals are directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 22-11-1985. All the appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The respondents in both sets of appeals are transport operators, who were plying their stage carriages on various routes in Cuddapah district. on 17-5-77, the APSRTC gazetted about 70 draft schemes under which they proposed to ply their buses to the complete exclusion of other private operators plying their vehicles in the above district. Naturally the private operators raised objections to these schemes. It appears that till about 1981 the Government was also lukewarm about the process of nationalisation. However, a new Government was formed in 1983, which took up for hearing the objections to the draft scheme published in 1977. The Transport Minister passed an order approving the scheme. The private operators filed a batch of writ petitions and the High Court, vide its orders dated 16-12-83, quashed the approved schemes with a direction that the operators should be heard afresh and the change in circumstances should be taken into account before finalising the schemes. On 24-4-84, fresh objections were invited. The Transport Minister heard these objections. The operators objected to his hearing the objections, alleging that he had taken illegal gratification from some of the operators promising to defer the schemes. In the meantime there was a change in Government but the Transport Minister continued in the new Government with the same portfolio and he approved the scheme on 9-9-1984. A few days later, the new Government resigned and the previous Chief Minister came back to power. Thereafter, about a year later, on 7-8-85, the Government issued various Government orders approving the schemes.

3. In August 1985, about 80 writ petitions were filed in the High Court. These were disposed of by an order dated 22-11-1985. By the said order, the High Court dismissed 60 writ petitions on the short ground that these petitioners had not approached the Court with clean hands and were not entitled to the exercise of the Courts discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. This was because these writ petitions had contained an allegation that the writ petitioners either directly or through their representatives had given bribes to the Minister in question for deferring the scheme of nationalisation. The other 22 writ petitions were, however, allowed by the High Court by the same order dated 22-11-1985 common to all the writ petitions.

4. The transporters, whose writ petitions had been dismissed, preferred SLP No. 15292 of 1985 and other connected petitions before this Court. The State Government as well as APSRTC filed special leave petitions from that portion of the order of the High Court, which allowed writ petitions of 22 petitioners and directed the State Government to give a fresh hearing to these petitioners before finalising the schemes afresh. The order dated 6-12-85 of this Court by which the earlier batch of SLPs was dismissed reads as follows:

"Dr. Chitale, Sr. Advocate says that the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the State Transport Undertaking of the Andhra Pradesh would be questioning that part of the order under appeal under which some operators are given further opportunity to object before the State Government. We however do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment under appeal at the instance of the petitioners before us. Also we do not find any substance in the contention that public interest has suffered in this case. We expect the State Government to take action under S. 68-E of the Motor Vehicles Act if there is any difficulty felt by the members of the general public by the operation of