Common Judgment: (V. Dhanapalan, J.)

1. While Writ Appeal Nos.1954 to 1961 of 2002 have been preferred by the appellants, who are the applicants for grant of stage carriage permits, against the order of a learned single Judge, dated 212. 2001, setting aside the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, dated 08.06.1993, directing for grant of permits in favour of the appellants, W.A.Nos.2771 to 2774 of 2003 are preferred by the objectors/private existing operators against the order of another learned single Judge, dated 03.07.2000, dismissing the writ petitions to set aside the very same order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, dated 08.06.1993.

2. Though all these Writ Appeals involve a common question of law, as they are divided and preferred against two contra decisions, it is proper to segregate these appeals into two categories, while giving disposal.

3. In the first category, let us decide W.A.Nos.1954 to 1961 of 2002. Of these cases, W.A.No.1960 of 2003 is taken for reference. In this case, the appellant had applied for grant of a stage carriage permit in respect of the route Kumarapalayam to Edapadi under the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, in short, "the Act", before the Regional Transport Authority, Salem, at Namakkal. The route falls under the classification of ordinary stage carriage service, as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules,1989, in short, "the Rules". The route applied for overlaps on the approved scheme in respect of the route Edapadi Bus Stand to Kumarapayalam, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 22.06.1990, which scheme was challenged before this Court along with other approved schemes and all the schemes were struck down by a Division Bench of this Court, aggrieved over which, Anna Transport Corporation, along with its sister transport undertakings, preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the Special Leave Petitions, the Apex Court, in a case arising from the State of Rajasthan, involving identical question of law, took a contra view to that of this Court and impliedly overruled the said judgment. Thereafter, the Regional Transport Authority, taking into account the fact that the grant route applied for overlaps on the approved scheme route, rejected the application, by its order, dated 19.05.1992. Anguished over the said order of the authority, the appellant preferred an appeal on the file of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Pending the said appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 16.04.1993 and, consequently, the schemes were restored. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal held that the schemes relied upon by the Corporation did not affect the grant route applied for by the appellant, as that being mofussil service, whereas the scheme contemplated town service. On that ground, the Tribunal directed the authority to grant permit in favour of the appellant. The said direction was challenged by the Corporation and also the private operators/objectors in the Writ Petitions.

4. The learned single Judge, after analysing Rule 3 Sub-rules (e) (i) (p) as regards "City and Town Service", "express service" and "ordinary service" and holding that there was no classification of service as mofussil either under the Act or under the Rules and that the permit sought to be granted overlapped on an approved scheme route, allowed the Writ Petitions, setting aside the order of the Tribunal. Hence, these appeals, at the instance of the applicants.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the draft and approved schemes and nationalisation have always made a clear distinction between express buses, mofussil buses and city or town buses; there cannot be a town service route for more than 30 kms. and one of the termini has to be inside a notified town area; the seating capacity of the vehicles is also hugely different since the town