ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals raise a question : whether Rule 282(2) (ii) of the A. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964 would be read into the notified route and given an interpretation extending 8 kms from the municipal limits of the town service of whether the conditions of the scheme and exceptions engrafted therein are strictly to the construed ? The facts are not fairly in dispute. In the first case, the appellant had obtained a temporary permit under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. 4 of 1939) (for short, the repealed Act) which stands repealed by Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. But we are concerned with the facts of this case with the interpretation of the scheme and the rules under the repealed Act. Admittedly, the appellant has been running the vehicle on the town service, Tirupati, a Pilgrim Centre of Lord Venkateswara, Swamy known in North India as Balaji, in Andhra Pradesh obtaining renewals on temporary basis from time to time. We are informed that in other cases they are pakka stage carriage permit-holders obtaining permits under Section 58 of the repealed Act. Chandragiri to Renigunta via Tirupati is the notified approved routed under Chapter IV-A o