S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) NOTICING a conflict in the decisions of the Supreme Court in K. S. R. T. Corporation, Bangalore v. B. A. Jayaram, AIR 1984 SC 790 and Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. Thiru M. A. Egappan, AIR 1987 SC 958 M. N. Rao, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) has referred the matter to a division bench or a full bench.

( 2 ) FACTS : the petitioner is a permit holder of an inter-State route from Aragonda to Vellore viz Chittoor. Some inter-State routes were nationalised in the year 1976 in relation whereto the approved scheme was published in the gazette on 7-12-1976. Admittedly, there has been a partial overlap in the said route on the sector Andalur to Chittor. The existing inter-State operators have been exempted from the operation of the said scheme.

( 3 ) IN terms of the said inter-State agreement the maximum number of vehicles that could be plied are two with 12 singles. The petitioner had one vehicle plying six singles.

( 4 ) PURPORTED to be in terms of S. 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act ) the petitioner made an application seeking variation of the conditions of his permit for grant of one extra vehicle and six extra singles. A notification was issued by the State Transport Authority for the aforementioned purpose whereafter permission was granted to the petitioner on 16-2-1982.

( 5 ) A writ petition was filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short apsrtc ) questioning the notification issued by the State Transport Authority permitting variation of the conditions of the permit. The said writ petition was disposed of directing APSRTC to prefer an appeal there against before the State Transport Authority. As no appeal was maintainable a revision petition was filed before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which was marked as Revision Petition No. 222 of 1987. The same was allowed. The present writ petition has been filed questioning the aforementioned order.

( 6 ) SUBMISSIONS : mr. T. Venkataramana, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the learned Tribunal having relied upon a division bench decision of this Court in M. A. Hari v. Govt. of A. P. , 1988 (1) ALT 541 which has been overruled by K. Pamanna v. The STAT 1992 (2) ALT 385 (FB) must be held to have acted illegally. Our attention in this connection has also been drawn to decision in APSRTC v. S. T. A. Tribunal, 1987 (2) ALT 900. The learned counsel would contend that when an approved scheme exists a permit can be varied and in support of the said contention reliance has also been placed on K. S. R. T. Corporation (supra) as also R. Raghuram v. P. Jayarama Naidu, AIR 1990 SC 412.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand submitted that keeping in view the fact that there exists an approved scheme, increase in the number of vehicles as also number of trips would not be permissible in law. Reliance in this connection has been placed on M/s. Adarsh Travels Bus Service v. State of U. P. , AIR 1986 SC 319.

( 8 ) FINDINGS : stage carriage permit is granted in terms of S. 48 of the Act which reads thus : grant of stage carriage permits :- (1) Subject to the provisions of S. 47, a Regional Transport Authority may, on application made to it under S. 46, grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit of refuse to grant such a permit : provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the application. (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) The Regional Transport Aurhority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a service of a stage carriage of a specified description or for one of more particular stage carriages, and may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely :- (i) that the vehicle or vehicles shal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document