The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Legislature cannot cancel variations granted by quasi-judicial authorities retrospectively, as it would encroach upon the quasi-judicial functions of the authorities and take away the rights conferred by such orders.

COMMON ORDER D.MURUGESAN, J.

In all these writ petitions, the respective petitioners have prayed for writ of declaration declaring the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) (Cancellation of Variation of Conditions of Permit) Act, 1996, (Act 19 of 1996) (hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Act") is unconstitutional, ultra vires and void and have consequently prayed for directions to the respective Regional Transport Authorities to permit the petitioners to operate their stage carriage services on the respective routes based on variations granted prior to the "Impugned Act".

2. In order to appreciate the challenge, certain facts leading to the impugned enactment must necessarily be stated. After the introduction of Chapter IV-A in the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, the State Government framed various Schemes notifying different routes during the year 1976. The Scheme enabled operators mentioned in Schedule II alone to operate apart from State Transport Undertakings. Pursuant to the publication of the draft Scheme, all other private stage carriage operators were excluded from operating any part of the notified routes. Since there was bifurcation of various routes, the State Transport Authorities issued new permits and also renewed the existing permits for those routes. Such routes also traversed part of the notified routes. New permits and renewal of the existing permits were granted on the impression that exclusion of private operators under the Scheme was partial only. The grant of new permits and the renewal of existing permits were challenged by the State Transport Undertaking on the ground that after the publication of the draft Scheme, all private stage carriage operators were excluded from operating even on any part of the notified route. The said challenge was upheld and it was declared that such permits which overlapped even a portion of the notified route were invalid. One of the operators by name M.A.Egappan who got permit to operate on a non notified route, while obtaining the renewal of permit got permission to ply on a route part of which overlapped the notified route, approached this Court, but was unsuccessful. The matter was taken to the Apex Court and the Apex Court in the judgment in "PANDIYAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION LTD. v. M.A.EGAPPAN 1987 (2) SCC 47" held that no person other than those mentioned in Annexure II to the draft Scheme can operate the stage carriage service on the entire notified route or any part thereof apart from the State Transport Undertaking. The Apex Court following the decision of a Constitution Bench in "ADARSH TRAVELS BUS SERVICE v. STATE OF U.P. (1985 (4) SCC 557)" further declared that the permits granted to stage carriage operators, which overlapped any part of the notified route were invalid. In view of the said judgment, approximately more than 4000 permits of private operators were rendered invalid.

3. The State Government was approached by such of those private operators with a grievance that even small operators having less than five permits were necessarily to take the vehicles off the road which caused hardship. The State Government considering the above plea and also taking note of the hardship and inconvenience caused to the travelling public and also the difficulty by the State or the Undertaking to replace the vehicles as it involved heavy expenditure, issued the Government Order No.2222 of 1997 sometime during July 1997 entitling the State Transport Authorities to renew the permits of such operators and also requested the Transport Undertaking not to oppose such renewal of permits. In fact a Bill was introduced in L.A.Bill No.42 of 1987 with an object to grant permits to small operators to ply their stage carriage on any portion of the area or the route covered by the draft Scheme or the approved Schemes. Though the said Bill was assented by the President, it was not published and hence it never came into force.

4. While the matter stood at that stage, the