( 1 ) ALL these Writ Petitions involving consideration of common questions of fact and law were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

( 2 ) EXCEPT W. P. No. 2157 of 1995, all the Writ Petitons were filed by the A. P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short the Corporation ) aggrieved by the orders of the A. P. Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad allowing the appeals filed by the private bus operators against the orders of the respective Regional Transport Authorities rejecting their applications for grant of pucca stage carriage permits on town service route at various places in the State.

( 3 ) IN W. P. Nos. 17953 of 1998 and 15538 of 1998, the Tribunal allowed the appeals following the decision of this Court in A. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. C. H. Satyanarayana Raju, (1988) 1 APLJ 119 : (AIR 1988 Andh Pra 341 ). In W. P. No. 1548 of 1995, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the operator following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in regard to liberalisation policy of the Government in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 443. In W. P. No. 17729 of 1990, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on an interpretation of the scheme approved by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 782 Home (Transport-IV) Department dated 13-6-1972. In the other Writ Petitions the appeals filed by the operators were allowed by the Tribunal directing grant of permits relying upon the decision of this Court in Rajappa Kawati v. G. Hanumantha Rao, (1995) 3 ALT 878 : (1996 0 AIHC 3461 ). In W. P. No. 2157 of 1995, however, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the operator following the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in W. P. No. 5650 of 1987.

( 4 ) THE common ground for rejecting the applications of the operators for grant of pucca stage carriage permits by the authorities on the routes requested by them was that the route applied for by them overlaps the notified mofussil route of the Corporation as per the schemes approved by the Government in the respective Government Orders.

( 5 ) IN W. A. No. 56 of 1992 a Division Bench of this Court by Judgment dated 14-10-1992 while referring to the scheme framed under S. 102 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity here- inafter referred to as the Act ) read with S. 104 thereof held that mofussil service includes town service and that merely because town service route is not mentioned in the notified and published scheme, that is not a ground to grant a permit for town service route. On a different of view taken by another Division Bench, the matter was referred to a third Judge in Satyanarayana Raju case (AIR 1988 Andh. Pra. 341) (supra) wherein after resolution it was held that the approved schemes do not enjoin prohibition against partial overlapping. In Rajappa Kawati v. G. Hanumantha Rao (1996 0 AIHC 3461) (supra) another Division Bench of this Court held that a route which is exclusively for town service cannot, for the reason that a mofussil service stage carriage shall traverse it for a longer distance, become a route falling under the nationalization scheme for town service. It was held:". . . . . . . . . WE have carefully examined the scheme. We are of the opinion that routes for town service and routes for mofussil service should be separately dealt with. A route which is exclusively for town service cannot, for the reason that a mofussil service stage carriage shall traverse it for a longer distance, become a route falling under the nationalisation scheme for town service. In ever changing maps of the towns and cities in our country, one cannot live oblivious of the fact that routes are almost tearing a part of the cities and towns and the routes for town service are expanding and increasing. The cities and bigger municipal towns are developing ring roads to avoid transport vehicles including stage carriages moving through the thick of the city and town population and mofussil service are meant