S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) BOTH these appeals involving common questions of law and facts were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners in the writ petitions are the appellants. Facts in Writ Appeal No. 983 of 1999;

( 2 ) THE appellant herein was holder of stage carriage permit on town service route kintali to Collectorate in the town of srikakulam. The said route was subsequently varied as Collectorate to pillalavalasa on 26-2-1985: For the said purpose, prior permission of the Transport commissioner, Hyderabad is required under Rule 282 (2) (ii) of the Andhra pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964 (for short "1964 Rules"), which is equivalent to rule 258 (2) (ii) of the Andhra Pradesh motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short "1989 rules" ). Such prior permission is required if the town service route is varied to such an extent that it would be beyond eight kilometres from the municipal limits.

( 3 ) THE permit was transferred in favour of the appellant on 23-5-1987. By reason of an order dated 11-11-1987, the said permit was cancelled by the second respondent in implementation of the approved scheme in g. O. Ms. Nos. 1093 and 1094 dated 9-11-1987. A revision petition was filed thereagainst before the first respondent, which was marked as R. P. No. 248 of 1987, and it was partly allowed by an order dated 5-12-1987 holding that the Regional Transport authority has no jurisdiction to grant variation of mofussil service route to town service and the appellant s town service route from Collectorate to Kintali was set aside. By reason of an order dated 28-11-1987 the second respondent sought to curtail the route of the appellant between srikakulam to Kintali. A revision petition was filed thereagainst before the first respondent, which was marked as R. P. No. 250 of 1987, and it was dismissed. In the writ petition filed against the said order, by reason of an interim order dated 5-7-1988, the appellant was permitted to ply the vehicle on the original town service route. Facts in Writ Appeal No. 1099 of 1999:

( 4 ) THE appellant herein was granted a permit to ply on the town service route kintali to Collectorate in Srikakulam town in the year 1982. A variation was sanctioned in the year 1985 in terms whereof the distance covered by the route exceeded eight kilometres beyond the municipal limits. No permission of the Transport Commissioner in terms of Rule 282 (2) (ii) of 1964 Rules was obtained. He had been plying his transport vehicle on the extended portion since 12-8-1985. By reason of an order dated 11-11-1987 the said permit was cancelled by the second respondent in implementation of the approved scheme in G. O. Ms. Nos. 1093 and 1094 dated 9-11-1987. A revision petition was filed thereagainst before the first respondent, which was marked as r. P. NO. 260 of 1987, and it was dismissed. In the writ petition filed by the appellant against the said order, by reason of an interim order dated 10-5-1988, he was permitted to operate the vehicle in between kintali to Collectorate in Srikakulam town.

( 5 ) IT is admitted that taxes payable for the mofussil service routes have been paid by the appellants.

( 6 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in the absence of any order of conversion of route from town service to mofussil service, they cannot be deprived of the benefit granted under the aforementioned scheme. Question;

( 7 ) THE only question, which arises for consideration, is as to whether the writ petitioners/appellants having plied their vehicles in the extended route -treating the same as mofussil service - and having paid the requisite taxes therefor, can now be permitted to turn round and contend that such extension in the absence of order of conversion was illegal. Findings:

( 8 ) BEFORE adverting to the aforementioned question, we may notice that the entire case of the appellants is based upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in a. P. S. R. T. C. , v

Click Here to Read the rest of this document