( 1 ) ALL these writ petitions relate to the power of the State Transport Authority (for short STA) to alter the conditions of a permit granted by it under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (since repealed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ). The permits involved are all inter-State stage carriage permits; some were granted by the Andhra Pradesh STA and some by the STAs of other States -- Tamil Nadu, Orissa and Karnataka -- in respect of which counter-signatures of the Andhra Pradesh STA are required.

( 2 ) A Division Bench of this Court in A. P. S. R. T. C. v. S. T. A. Tribunal, 1987 (2) ALT 900 at 903, expressed the view that the STA has no power to vary the conditions of a stage carnage permit granted by it. The reasoning of the Division Bench was that :"the power to vary the conditions of the permit it located in Section 48 only and having authorised Regional Transport Authority to vary permit the omission to refer to State Transport Authority is deliberate and furnishes a clue to the exclusion of State Transport Authority from exercising the power of variation. "

( 3 ) ANOTHER Division Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 901 of 1984, dated 15-3-89 doubted the correctness of the above view observing:"the authority which granted a permit has always the inherent power to vary the conditions of the permit, and, in our view, the powers conferred on the Regional Transport Authority under Sections 47 and 48 would equally apply in the case of a permit which is granted by the State Transport Authority. "

( 4 ) YET another Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Yousuf Basha v. A. P. S. R. T. C. , 1979 (2) Andh WR 403, has taken the view that under sub-section (1-D) of S. 68-F of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the STA has no power to grant variation of the conditions of a stage carriage permit granted by it after the publication of a draft scheme covering a portion of the route in respect of which the variation was sought. The Supreme Court in P. Jayarama Naidu v. The S. T. A. T. , Civil Appeal No. 4126/88, Dt. 24-1-89, expressed the view that :". . . . . IT is only after the stage of Section 68-D (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act had been reached the draft scheme approved with or without notifications that the scheme could become operative. . . . . Nothing has been shown to us to indicate that until the draft scheme becomes operative as an approved scheme, a variation of the conditions of an existing permit on a portion of the route cannot be made. "the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Pandiya Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. Thiru M. A. Egappan, AIR 1987 SC 958 was distinguished observing that the same would apply only in a case where the approved scheme came into force.

( 5 ) BECAUSE of the uncertainty as to the correct legal position and the divergence, of opinion expressed by the two Division Benches, all these matters have been referred to this Full Bench. The questions that arise for consideration are : (1) Whether the STA has jurisdiction to vary the conditions of a stage carriage permit granted by it? (2) Whether variation of conditions of a stage carriage permit under Sec. 57 (8) can be granted during the pendency of a draft scheme published under Sec. 68-C of the Act? (3) Whether the conditions of a stage carriage permit can be varied under Sec. 57 (8) of the Act when there is an approved scheme published under Sec. 68-D of the Act? Re : (1):-- The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 contemplates two transport authorities: (1) for the entire State; and (2) at the regional level. The former is called the State Transport Authority and the latter, the Regional Transport Authority. The powers and functions of the transport authorities are regulated by the Act. The constitution of the authorities is by an official notification issued by the State Government under S. 44 (1) of the Act. In respect of the State transport, authority, sub-sec. (3) of S. 44 lays down the following powers and functions :" (A) to co-ordinate and regulate the act