1. The question referred to the Full Bench as arising out of these Writ Petitions is as follows: -
"Whether the term, 'existing permitholders on inter - State routes' would mean only those who, on the date on which the approved scheme was published in the Gazette, were holders of permits (to operate on inter - State routes) granted by Transport Authorities of one State and also countersigned by Transport Authorities of the other State, under S.63 of the M. V. Act, or whether that term would also include the holders of uncountersigned primary permits who, on that date had the right to operate on a part of an inter - State route and which part overlaps a notified route under the Scheme."
The circumstances in which the Writ petitions came to be filed and which gave rise to this reference to the Full Bench are briefly the following: -

2. A scheme for nationalisation of Road Transport Services in respect of 87 specified routes in the District of Kolar and neighbouring Districts was prepared by the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation. After necessary publication, receiving and hearing of objections, etc., the Scheme as approved under the provisions of Chapter IV - A of the Motor Vehicles Act was published in the Mysore Gazette dated 25th January, 1968.

3. The validity of the Scheme was challenged in several writ petitions presented to this Court. By an order dated 7th October, 1968, the Writ Petitions were dismissed. The appeal against the said order of this Court to the Supreme Court was not successful.

4. Subsequently, action was taken by the appropriate Regional Transport Authorities under S.68 - F (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act for the purpose of giving effect to the Approved Scheme. In the case of the petitioners in this batch of Writ Petitions the action proposed was to curtail the routes covered by the permits held by them in so far as such permits related to one or other of the notified routes covered by the approved Scheme. The petitioners complained that the action so proposed was not correct or legal and depended in support of their contention on what they described as the true effect of sub-clause (a) appearing against clause (d) of the approved Scheme. The said clause (d) sets out the extent and nature of the exclusion of private operators sought to be brought about by the Scheme. That clause reads as follows:
"(d) Whether the services are to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking to the exclusion, complete or partial of other persons or otherwise.
The State Transport Undertaking will operate services on all the routes to the complete exclusion of other persons except that -
(a) that existing permit - holders on the inter - State routes, may continue to operate such inter - State routes, subject to the condition that their permits shall be rendered ineffective for the overlapping portions of the notified routes."
The petitioners in these cases have secured from appropriate Regional Transport Authorities of Mysore State, on various dates, permits in respect of routes, one of the termini or the starting point of which lies within the State of Mysore and the other in the State of Andhra Pradesh or the State of Madras (now called Tamil Nadu). None of them had secured countersignature of the appropriate Transport Authority in the State of Andhra Pradesh or in Tamil Nadu, as the case may be, before the date of the publication of the Scheme, i.e., 25th January, 1968.

5. The principal question, therefore, that was debated before the referring Bench which first heard these Writ petitions was whether the benefit of sub-clause (a) of Clause (d) of the Approved Scheme copied above could be available only to such persons who had secured countersignature from the appropriate Transport Authorities of other States. The contention strongly pressed on behalf of the petitioners was that the securing of counter - signatures was quite immaterial and therefore unnecessary for the purpose of entitling them to the benefit of the said c