Shaffique, J.

These batch of writ petitions have been filed challenging a scheme (hereinafter referred as the 2009 scheme) published by the Government under Section 100(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act, 1988' or 1988 Act'). As common questions arise for consideration, these writ petitions are disposed of by a common judgment.

2. For easy reference, documents referred herein are as described in W.P.C.No.22091/2009.

3. The brief facts as narrated in the said writ petition are as under:-

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'KSRTC') and its Employees Association objected to the grant of permits by Regional Transport Authority (for short 'RTA') to operate stage carriages in Kottayam-Kumily National Highway, by filing writ petitions before the High Court. It was contended that though it was a supplementation scheme, it violated Thekkady-Ernakulam scheme and Kottayam-Thekkady scheme. The learned Single Judge directed the RTAs not to grant permits to private operators in the route. The writ appeals filed by the private operators came to be dismissed, against which the special leave petitions were filed before the Supreme Court. By an order dated 04/10/2005 in Civil Appeal No.4994/2002 and connected cases, the Supreme Court directed the KSRTC and the appellants in the said cases who were private vehicle operators, to give suggestions to the State Government to find out a workable arrangement in the matter relating to operation of stage carriages to prevent unnecessary inconvenience to the travelling public. It was observed that such an arrangement will be applicable to the schemes covered by the judgment of the High Court and the State Government shall have discussions with the parties and find out a solution. Pursuant to the said direction, the matter was heard by the Government and it was decided that the existing private stage carriage operators should be permitted to operate the service along with KSRTC and to amend the supplementation scheme subject to final orders to be passed by the Supreme Court in the pending Civil Appeals. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court on 16/11/2005 and the State Government was directed to file the amended scheme within six weeks. Accordingly, Ext.P3 order dated 31/12/2005 was issued permitting the stage carriage operators as on 02/11/2005 to operate the service buses along with KSRTC. The Transport Commissioner was directed to forward necessary proposal to Government to amend the scheme. Ext.P4 dated 09/05/2006 is the notification issued by the Government publishing the proposal for amended scheme. Clause 4 of the schedule to the said scheme indicated that the existing private operators will be permitted to continue. Further, in Clause 5(a), in relation to the question whether exclusion of other service will be complete or partial, it was stated as partial, and in clause 5(b), to the question whether other services are to be excluded in the said sectors, the answer given was "private operators will be permitted to operate on portion of the notified route not exceeding 10 Kms or 10% of the length of the route applying for, whichever is less". In the column relating to any other information, it was indicated that "the right to operate any new service and to increase the trips in the above routes will be reserved exclusively for Kerala State Road Transport Corporation". Without finalising Ext.P4 proposal, a fresh proposal was published as per Ext.P5 notification dated 09/05/2007, and final notification of the scheme was published on 06/05/2008, as Ext.P6, which was challenged by filing W.P.C.No.17813/2008 and connected cases. This Court, as per judgment dated 24/07/2008 found that the State exceeded its powers by notifying the approved scheme with provisions which are foreign to the proposals notified inviting objections and it was held that Clauses 4 and 19 of Ext.P6 have been notified in excess of the powers conferred on the Government u