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had obtained a temporary permit under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. 4 of 1939) (for short, the repealed Act) which stands repealed by Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. But we are concerned with the facts of this case with the interpretation of the scheme and the rules under the repealed Act.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are informed that in other cases they are pakka stage carriage permit-holders obtaining permits under Section 58 of the repealed Act. Chandragiri to Renigunta via Tirupati is the notified approved routed under Chapter IV-A of the repealed Act. The appellants had relied upon a memorandum issued by the Government dated 9-11-1981 in which it was stated that the town service stood extendible to a distance of 8 kms from municipal limits. When the appellants were prohibited to run their town service up to the extent of 8 kms on the basis of such memorandum, they filed writ petitions in the High Court. In Writ Petition No. 1995 of 1983, the learned Single Judge of the High Court held that by operation of the prohibitions contained in the scheme in Notes 2 and 3 thereof, the town service could not be extended up to a distance of 8 kms from the municipal limits the same being contrary to the scheme Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition. Similar cases met with the same fate. In WAs Nos. 434 and 431 of 1984 and batch, the Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 30-10-1985 and in other cases on different dates, confirmed the same.

3. Mr A. Subba Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants who led the batch, contended that Rule 282(2) (ii) expressly mentions that town service shall be construed to be extendible to the outer limits of the municipality and so town service would encompass 8 kms from the municipal limits. Though it is a notified route, the appellants are entitled to run their vehicles on the notified route up to a distance of 8 kms the same being a part of the town service. The interpretation given by the High Court, therefore, is incorrect in law. Shri G. Ramaswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Corporation, contended that there is a distinction between moffussil service and town service. The town service is intended to operate only within the town area. Rule 282(2) (ii) requires to be interpreted only when there is an intersection between the notified area and the town service; the scheme is a complete code in itself. The exceptions and rights given in the scheme which is a law, requires to be interpreted strictly. The appellant in the first case having obtained a temporary permit under Section 62 of the repealed Act, it outlived its life the moment the period of four months expires. He is not an existing operator on the route and, therefore, he cannot come within the exceptions engrafted in the scheme. It is also contended that if any permit is granted in the town service, in view of the language used in the scheme and the exceptions engrafted, it shall not overlap more than 8 kms on the notified route. If it so overlaps, there is a total prohibition against running the vehicle in the notified route in town. The interpretation put up by the High Court is, therefore, correct in law.

4. The question, therefore, as posed earlier, is : whether Rule 282(2) (ii) would be read into the notified scheme and given an interpretation ext