The main legal point established in the judgment is that no permit to private operators can be issued to ply the stage carriage on a national route, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court also emphasized the authority's power to grant temporary permits to private operators in certain circumstances and the need to protect the interest of the traveling public.

B.N. Patnaik, J.

A common question of law on similar facts has arisen in all these O.P' s. Hence, this common judgment is being passed in all the cases,

2. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short'the Corporation') challenges the judgment in M.V. A.A. case No. 300/95 rendered by the State Transport appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. By the judgment, the Tribunal allowed the applications of the respondents for extension of permit and to operate on the approved routes which is envisaged in the scheme.

3. The respondents who are operating regular stage carriage service applied for permits to ply the vehicles on the routes of approved scheme framed under S.68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The respondent Regional Transport Authority rejected the applications on the ground that the approved route and routes applied for overlap at some points, hence they preferred appeals under S.89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the said orders before the STAT, Ernakulam. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the R.T. A. to settle the timings in accordance with law and endorse the variation of the permit. It was held by the Tribunal that the respondent transport operators had been operating the services on those routes permitted by the R.T.A. for a long time. Grant of permit as applied for will not affect the approved scheme if there is overlapping of some routes over short distances.

4. The petitioner contended that the Government of Kerala notified the scheme under the provisions of S.68-D of the M.V. Act, 1939. As per the pro visions of the said scheme, no permit can be granted to private operators except the existing services operated on portions of the route. The grant of permit to the respondent operator in violation of Ss.103 and 104 of them. v. Act, 1988 and in violation of the approved scheme is illegal. The scheme being in the nature of a total exclusion scheme, no private operator is entitled to operate on those routes. The petitioner Corporation is operating sufficient number of buses on the notified routes as per the scheme. It is also prepared to operate any number of buses in accordance with the requirements. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order passed by the STAT may be quashed with a direction that no permit should be granted to the respondent operators on the nationalised route in violation of the scheme. The respondent operators contended that the scheme is only a supplemental scheme for two vehicles on the same route and it is not a complete exclusion scheme. Hence, grant of permit is not prohibited. The petitioner did not raise objections for the extension of the permits when they asked for it. The petitioner Corporation is not operating any service in most of the approved nationalised routes. Enough number of buses are not provided by the Corporation to meet the needs of the growing population. The permit issued to the private operators are therefore, in public interest. The distance that overlaps on various routes are very short. The travelling public will be put to great difficulties and hardship in case the private operators are prohibited from plying their vehicles in the absence of substituted service by the Corporation. There is no dispute that these private operators had been carrying on the service for quite a long time even after the scheme was published.

5. The scheme in question was published under S.68-1)(3) of the M.V. Act, 1939. The scheme continues to have its validity even after coming into force of the M. V. Act, 1988. In MA. Marsh Travels Bus Service & anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (AIR 1986 SC 319) the Supreme Court while considering similar such questions of a scheme framed by the State of Uttar Pradesh held as follows:

"Where a route is nationalised under Chapter IV-A of the Act, a private operator with a permit to ply a stage carriage permit over another route but which has a common overlapping sector with the nationalised route cannot ply his vehicle over that pa