1. On June 30, 1967, the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor, in the State of Andhra Pradesh, granted a permit to respondent 3 to operate his stage carriage on an inter - State route between Tumkur and Thirupathi which is in the State of Mysore. Part of that route between Mulbagal and Doddaballapura which lies within the State of Mysore, became a notified route under a Scheme called the Kolar Scheme which was published on January 25, 1968, after it received approval under S.68 - D of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. Meanwhile, respondent 3 had made an application to the State Transport Authority, Bangalore, on September 5, 1967, for its counter - signature under S.63 of the Motor vehicles Act in respect of the route which was within the Mysore State. That counter - signature became necessary by reason of the provision contained in S.63(1) of the Act that a permit granted by one State shall have no validity in another State unless it is counter - signed by the concerned Transport Authority of that State.

3. But, the Mysore State Transport Authority by an order made by it on March 2, 1968, refused counter - signature on the basis of the exclusion of private operators from the nationalised routes. But, in the appeal preferred to it by respondent 3, the Revenue Appellate Tribunal directed the State Transport Authority to countersign the permit, and, it is this direction which is called in question in these three writ petitions.

4. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1443 of 1968 is an operator on the same route under an inter - State permit granted to him by the concerned Mysore State Transport Authority. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1456 of 1968 is the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1643 of 1968 was one of those who opposed the counter - signature.

5. These three petitioners ask us to quash the order made by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal on the principal ground that the exclusion of respondent 3 from the notified route between Mulbagal and Doddaballapura is so complete and effective that the State Transport Authority had no power to countersign the primary permit granted to respondent 3.

6. In the appeal before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal in which the impugned order was made by it, the Petitioner in W.P. No. 1443 of 1968 was respondent 3, the Corporation which is the petitioner, in W.P. No. 1456 of 1968 was respondent 6 and the petitioners in W.P. No. 1643 of 1968 were respondents 4 and 5. In its order the Tribunal made the observation that the opposition to the counter - signature sought by respondent 3 emanated only from the Corporation, and that the other respondents before it advanced an argument only with respect of timings. The petitioners in W.P. No. 1643 of 1968 state in their affidavit that that observation made by the Tribunal is inaccurate, and that what was done by those petitioners was to adopt the argument advanced on behalf of the Corporation which opposed the counter - signature.

7. However that may be, since the Corporation, even according to the Tribunal, did oppose the counter - signature in the appeal preferred to the Tribunal on the ground of exclusion which the Kolar Scheme incorporates, and that question arises in all the three writ petitions,
we proceed to consider the correctness of the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that that exclusion had no impact on respondent 3.

8. The reason why the Tribunal reached that conclusion was that the
"(d) Whether the services are to be operated by the State Transport Undertakings to the exclusion, complete or partial of other persons or otherwise.

9. Since the scheme prepared under S.68 - C of the Motor Vehicles Act may provide for complete or partial exclusion of private operators, it is clear from this part of the scheme that the exclusion which the Kolar Scheme incorporated was not a complete exclusion,and that in the case of "existing permit holders on the inter - State routes" to whom sub-clause (a) appearing a