Variation of route does not amount to grant of new permit - Petitioner liable to pay tax to reciprocating State for extended portion of route not covered by agreement.

( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions raise identical questions for resolution and so we are inclined to dispose them of by this common judgment Suffice it to mention the facts in W. P. 166 of 89 The "petitioner is an interstate operator originally plying on the route Madras to Arambakkam and this route, by virtue of the Inter-State Transport Reciprocal Agreement between the governments of Andhra Pradesh and Tamilnadu notified in G. O. Ms.-No. 715 home (Transport-1) dated 2-6-1975, was allotted to the State of Tamilnadu. He applied to the Tamilnadu State Transport Authority seeking variation of I the route by extension from Madras to Arambakkam as Madras to Sullurpet. When the State Transport Authority, Madras dismissed his application he preferred an appeal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras which by its order dated 23-12-1975 allowed the appeal and granted the variation in consequence of which the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh was asked by its counterpart in Madras to grant concurrence. The State Transport authority, Andhra Pradesh rejected the request for concurrence on the ground that a part of the route in question is covered by one of the routes, Nellore to ramapuram included in the approved scheme published in G. O. Ms. No. 1121 dated 8-10-75. The order of the S. T. A. , was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh and thereafter he filed W. P. No. 345 of 1979 in this Court. A learned single judge dismissed the writ petition taking the view that the area between Arambakkarn and sullurpet is not covered by the Inter-State Agreement and, therefore, the provisions of Sec. 68-FF of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 are attracted as a result of which the petitioner was not entitled to the permit in respect of variation sought the pro visions of Sec. 68-FF of the Act forbid grant of a new permit when a scheme had been published save in cases where the provisions of the scheme itself provide for an exception. The learned judge also expressed the view that an application for variation of a route must necessarily be treated as an application for grant of a new permit by virtue of the provisions of sub-sec. (8) of Sec. 57 of the Act. During the pendency of the writ petition, by an interlocutory order of a learned single judge, the S. T. A. , Andhra Pradesh was directed to counter-sign the permit without insisting on payment of any tax to the State of Andhra Pradesh. When the writ petition was dismissed on 5-6-79, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal - W. A. No. 222 of 79 which was disposed of by a Division Bench on 4-8-87 by a common order along with W. P. No. 5881 of 1978. The Division Bench noticed the fact that the relevant approved scheme based upon which the contention was advanced by the Government that the petitioner was not entitled to countersignature in respect of the variations sought, was not produced and therefore, the division Bench allowed the writ appeal as well as the writ petition observing:"since the issue raised is of a fact and no investigation Is done in that regard, we deem it proper the case be remanded. The order under appeal in writ appeal is set aside. There would be a remand to the state Transport Authority at Hyderabad in the above two cases to find out under which clause or clauses of the approved scheme the permit holders are entitled to have the counter signature obtained from the andhra Pradesh Authorities. The Writ Petition and the writ appeal are ordered as indicated. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150/-; pending consideration, if the route permit holder is interested to ply in the sector in Andhra Pradesh he or they may pay tax. In the event. of decision going in favour of the writ petitioners, they will be entitled to the refund of the amount paid. "pursuant to the above directions the. Andhra Pradesh State Transport authority passed a resolution on 28-11-88 in R. No. 45042/e1/78, the operative portion of which