The modification of a scheme under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act can only be made with regard to the objections filed and that the introduction of a new condition in the scheme without hearing the affected parties violates the principles of natural justice.

( 1 ) ALL the above writ appeals and the writ petitions raise a common question and may be disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) THE appeals are all directed against the orders of Obul Reddy, J. , (as he then was ). The appellant in each of the appeals in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad. The petitioners in the two writ petitions and the respondents in these writ appeals are inter-State Operators of Stage Carriage holding the requisite permits. The policy of nationalizing Road Transport Services was extended to some of the Coded Districts. In the instant cases, we are concerned with Chittoor and Anantapur Districts. In order to understand the question involved in the writ appeals and the writ petitions, we will deal with the facts in Writ petition No. 7327 of 1975, the order against which is the subject matter of Writ Appeal No. 374 of 1974. In the rest of the matters before us, the facts are very similar and the legal contentions raised by either party are the same.

( 3 ) OUR learned brother had disposed of Writ petitions Nos. 7327, 7461, 7493, 7459, 7539 and 7636 of 1973 by a common order dated 25-1-1974. In all the Writ petitions, the Writ petitioners had prayed a writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents in the writ petitions viz. , The State of Andhra Pradesh. The Chairman of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor to forbear from enforcing a certain clause in the scheme approved by the Government and Published in the Gazette. A direction was sought preventing the chairman of the A. . State Road transport Corporation from implementing the approved scheme.

( 4 ) IN Writ petition No. 7327 of 1973, the petitioner is the proprietrix of the Chittoor Public Transport Company. She was operating two inter-State Carriage permits. One stage carriage was on the route Tirupati to Bangalore in Karnataka Via. Chittoor and Palmaner. The second inter-State Stage carriage permit was for operation between Tirupati and Vellore (Tamil Nadu) via. Chittoor. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation had published on 15-11-1972 a Scheme with regard to the route from Tirutpati to Chittoor proposing to run Road Transport services to the complete exclusion of private operators. With regard to Tirupati to Chittoor via, Puthalpet and Chandragiri (inter State ). Objections were invited to the draft scheme and the same were heard and the Government had on 17-11-1973 approved the proposed scheme introducing a note which was not there in the proposed scheme which was published under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) Clause 3 in the note (hereinafter referred to as the the impugned clause stated that "the scheme shall not affect the existing permit holders of the stage carriages on the inter-State routes overlapping the notified route subject to the condition that they shall not pick up or set down intra-State passengers on the notified route. " The result of this note in the approved scheme by the Government is that it has affected the inter-State permits issued to the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner was forbidden to pick up passengers between Tirupati and Chittoor via. Puthalpet and Chandragiri which are on the intra-State routes, but within the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the introduction of the said condition contained in Cl. (5) of the note. In the Writ petition, it was inter alia contended that as the offending clause affects the inter-State routes, the respective other States authorities like Tamil Nadu State Transport Authority and the Karnataka Transport Authority should have been consulted and their consent taken. In was also contended that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to raise objections regarding the introduction of such a note, that therefore the introduction of the said clause