( 1 ) THE controversy whether temporary permit under S. 68f (1c) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act 4 of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) could be granted on a route which is already covered by an approved scheme and prohibited by its terms on the ground that another draft scheme in respect of a longer route of which the route in the approved scheme forms a part arises for consideration by the Full Bench. As there was a conflict of views among two Bench decisions viz. , Writ Appeal No. 888/1982 dated 22-10-1982 confirming the judgment reported in M. R. Ramasubbamma v. S. T. A. T. , A. P. , 1982 LS (AP) 222 and another judgment in Writ Appeal No. 881 and 889 of 1982 dated 23-9-1986 and, therefore, writ petition No. 13061/1986 was referred to a Full Bench by an order dated 1-10-1986. After the said reference, some more writ petitions including the present two writ petitions have been referred to the Full Bench to be heard along with W. P. No. 13061/1986. After the reference, Writ Petition No. 13061/1986 and some other writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn or infructuous. The controversy, however, survives in these two writ petition, both of which have been filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation against two different orders of the Secretary, A. P. State Transport Authority granting temporary permits under S. 68f (1c) on two different routes in favour of the respective contesting respondents and also the orders of the State Transport Authority, Karnataka granting variation of inter-State permits. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation and also Sri G. Surya-narayana learned counsel appearing for the persons in whose favour the temporary permits have been granted in each of the two cases. Government Pleader has appeared for the Secretary, A. P. State Transport Authority and none for Karnataka State Transport Authority. As common arguments were advanced, these two writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) FOR convenience it is appropriate to refer to the facts of the case in Writ Petition No. 3528/1982 which are illustrative of the controversy and the facts in the other writ petition differ on some minor aspects which will be noticed later. Since prior to 1975, respondent No. 3 was an existing permit holder on the Inter-State route Kolar Gold Fields to Madanapalli which was granted after an Inter-State agreement between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh States under S. 63 (3a and B) of the Act. As under the agreement this route was allotted to Karnataka State the said permit was issued by the State Transport Authority, Karnataka. Subsequently, by G. O. Ms. No. 762 dated 3-6-1975 the Government of Andhra Pradesh approved a scheme under S. 68d of the Act for the route Madanapalle to Kadiri, both in Andhra Pradesh and covering a distance of about 100 Kms. According to the terms of this scheme, there is a complete exclusion of other operators on the route except the categories mentioned in it. Subsequent to the approval of the said scheme another draft scheme for the Inter-State route between Kurnool to Vellore in Tamil Nadu (Draft Scheme 26 of 1975) covering a distance 440 Kms. was published pursuant to an Inter- State agreement between these States. There is no material to show as to the further steps taken pursuant to the said draft scheme.

( 3 ) THE third respondent made an application to the State Transport Authority, Karnataka for variation of his Inter-State route between Kolar Gold Fields to Madanapalle by adding a segment Madanapalle to Kadiri (both in Andhra Pradesh and which completely over-laps the route approved in the scheme in G. O. Ms. No. 762 referred to above ). The State Transport Authority, Karnataka after following the procedure for grant of a fresh permit as contemplated by S. 59 (8) and notifying the application of the third respondent, granted the variation appli-ed for by its order dated 19-1-1982. From a copy of the proceedings of Karnatak

Click Here to Read the rest of this document