ORDER
V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. The petitioner is a holder of pucca stage carriage permit on inter-State route from Srikakulam to Parlakimundi via Narsannapeta, Sarvakota and Pathapatnam. She filed an application before the StateTransport Authority (STA), the second respondent herein, for grant of additional shuttle trip from Srikakulam to Sarvakota and curtailment of shuttle trip from Tallasamudram to Narasannapeta. As the said application was not considered, she filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 6149 of 1996. By an order dated 26-3-1996, this Court directed the second respondent to dispose of the said application. The second respondent, in its meeting held on 6-2-1999 considered the said application vide item No. 13 and resolved to reject the same. The petitioner approached the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT), the first respondent herein, by filing a revision petition under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act'). The STAT by an order dated 15-12-2000 made in R.P. No. 61 of 1999 affirmed the orders of the STA. The order of the STAT is assailed in this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari and also for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant the trips as applied for by the petitioner.
2. The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), the third respondent herein, filed a counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is the case of the third respondent that grant of new permit on the route is prohibited by an approved and notified scheme and the same cannot be granted. The grant of permit to private operators on inter-State route from Srikakulam to Parlakimundi is prohibited by three schemes which are overlapping, namely, Srikakulam to Pathapatnam (G.O. Ms. No. 1076/87); Srikakulam to Chapra (G.O. Ms. No. 584/78); and Tekkali to Pathapatnam (G.O. Ms. No. 1 147/87). The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled for any variation either for grant of additional shuttle trips or curtailment of shuttle trip. The existence of inter-State agreement is condition precedent for grant of permit and the inter-State permit can be granted only to the extent specified therein. In the inter-Stateagreement covering inter-State route from Srikakulam to Parlakimundi, there is a provision for three round trips only and that the said provision has already been exhausted. If the variation sought for by the petitioner is ordered, it would amount to violation of the said agreement. Inter-State agreement does not provide for variation and, therefore, the orders passed by the second respondent and confirmed by the first respondent are sustainable.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri T. Venkataramana, submits that the shuttle trip from Srikakulam to Sarvakota sought for by the petitioner does not result in variation of pucca stage carriage permit on the inter-State route from Srikakulam to Parlakimundi and, therefore, grant of such variation does not amount to grant of fresh permit and, therefore, the existing scheme does not prohibit grant of such variation. He placed reliance on the decisions of this Court as well as the Supreme Court in K.S.R.T. Corporation v. B.A. Jayaram, : [1984]2SCR768 , K.S.R.T. Corporation V.K.S.T. Authority, Bangalore, : AIR1987SC711 , R. Raghuram v. P. Jayarama Naidu, , K. Pamanna v. The S.T.A.T, : AIR1992AP368 (FB) , L. Raghuraman v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad, : 2001(5)ALD711 (FB).
4. Per contra, learned StandingCounsel for APSRTC, Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,submits that in the guise of seeking variationfor grant of shuttle trips from Srikakulamto Sarvakota, the petitioner is asking for apermit on a different route and, therefore,the same is not permissible as per the notified/approved schemes in force. The routefrom Srikakulam to Sarvakota is within theState of Andhra Pradesh and, therefore, theRTA is competent to grant permit fromSrikakulam to Sarvakota. As the route isoverlapping the approved scheme, in viewof the prohibition, the variation cannot begranted. The learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Vivek Dwivedi v. Prem Narain, : AIR1999MP1 , and also the decisions of this Court in K. Pamanna v. The S.T.A.T. and L. Raghuraman v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad (supra). He also submits that the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in K.S.R.T. Corporation v. K.S.T. Authority, Bangalore (supra) has no application to the facts of this case.
5. Elaborate submissions were made by the learned Counsel with reference to various precedents decided by the Supreme Court as well as this Court. But the point raised in this case is squarely covered by the decision of the Full Bench in L. Raghuraman v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad (supra), to which I was a member. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner concedes that the Full Bench judgment is binding on this Court, he pleads to refer the matter to an appropriate Bench for reconsidering the decision of the Full Bench, as, according to him, the Full Bench failed to consider the decision of the Supreme Court in K.S.R.T. Corporation v. K.S.T. Authority, Bangalore (supra).
Legal Framework
6. A stage carriage permit on inter-State route is valid only when it is countersigned by the State Transport Authority or by the Regional State Transport Authority. Route is defined in Section 2(38) of the Act as to mean a line of travel which specifies highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another. Insofar as inter-State stage carriage permit is concerned, it can be varied under Section 80(3) of the Act on an application made by a permit holder either by increasing number of trips above the specified maximum or by variation, extensionor curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit. Any application for variation by reason of Sub-section (3) of Section 80 can be treated as an application for grant of a new permit. By reason of decision of the Supreme Court in K.S.R.T. Corporation., Bangalore v. B.A. Jayaram (supra), the legal fiction in Sub-section (3) of Section 80, namely, treating application for variation as an application for new permit is only restricted to the procedure to be followed and not with reference to substance of the variation. An order permitting variation by Regional Transport Authority or State Transport Authority, as the case may be, is not a new permit as defined in Section 2(31) of the Act. Be it noted that 'permit' means permit issued by State or Regional Transport Authority under the Act authorizing use of motor vehicle as a transport vehicle. Section 72(1) of the Act empowers the Regional Transport Authority to grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with modifications as are deemed fit subject to provisions of Section 71 which provides for procedure to be followed by Regional Transport Authority before considering application for stage carriage permit. Even in the case of application made under Subsection (3) of Section 80 of the Act, Regional. Transport Authority is required to follow same procedure under Section 71 of the Act. The variation granted cannot be a new stage carriage permit, but the same shall have to comply with other provisions of the Act.
7. Chapter VI of the Act contains special provisions relating to State Transport Undertakings established under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 by the Central Government, or State Government, or Municipality or Corporation. The provisions provide for preparation and publication of the proposal regarding Road Transport Service by the State Transport Undertaking, publication of the draft schemeand publication of the approved scheme. When once the draft scheme is approved and published as required under Sub-section (3) of Section 100, the effect of approved scheme is dealt with by Sub-section (2) of Section 103 which reads as under:
103. Issue of permits to State Transport Undertakings :--(1) Where, in pursuance of an approved scheme, any State Transport Undertaking applies in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf for a stage carriage permit or a goods carriage permit or a contract carriage permit in respect of a notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority in any case where the said area or route lies in more than one region and the Regional Transport Authority in any other case shall issue such permit to the State Transport Undertaking, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter V.
(2) For the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority or, as the case may be, the Regional Transport Authority concerned may, by order,--
(a) refuse to entertain any application for grant or renewal of any other permit or reject any such application as may be pending;
(b) cancel any existing permit;
(c) modify the terms of any existing permit so as to-
(i) tender the permit ineffective beyond a specified date;
(ii) reduce the number of vehicles authorized to be used under the permit;
(iii) curtail the area or route covered by the permit insofar as such permit relates to the notified area or notified route.
(3) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no appeal shall lie against anyaction taken, or order passed, by the State Transport Authority or any Regional Transport Authority under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2).
8. Section 104 of the Act further provides that after publication of the scheme State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. The approved scheme published in the official gazette by the State Government has been held to be law binding on all. Any permit or variation either by increasing number of trips, or by extension or curtailment of the routes is also not permissible unless the same is provided for in the approved scheme. Further, there is no power which inheres either in the Government or Transport Authorities as enumerated in Section 68 of the Act to relax the provisions of the Act or the scheme except as provided in the notified scheme.
Full Bench decision in L. Raghuraman v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal
9. In K.S.R.T. Corporation v. B.A.Jayaram (supra) the Supreme Courtconsidered the questions - whether theconditions of permit can be varied so as toincrease number of trips and/or number ofvehicles allowed to be operated under thepermit?, and whether conditions ofpermit held by the existing operator on inter-State route can be varied so as to allowincrease in number of vehicles operatingunder that permit It was held that thepurpose of Section 57(8) of the MotorVehicles Act, 1939 (Section 80(3) of the1988 Act) is only to apply to such anapplication for variation the procedureprescribed by Sub-sections (3) to (7) ofSection 57 of 1939 Act, and not for thepurpose of treating the variation granted as anew permit. The Supreme Court referred tothe scheme which permitted the existinginter-State stage carriage permit holders torun their buses subject to conditions of overlapping, and observed as under:..We fail to see any inconsistency between an increase in the number of vehicles or trips allowed under such a permit and the provisions of the said scheme. So far as the portions of the inter-State route covered by the said scheme are concerned, the permits of the existing permit-holders have been rendered ineffective. Further, by the said scheme as modified, the existing permit holders are not allowed to pick up or set down passengers on these portions of the notified routes. , Whether one vehicle or more traverse these portions or whether the same vehicle traverses such portion more than once cannot in any manner affect the services operated by the appellant on such portions since no passengers are allowed to be picked up or set down on such portions. All that would happen is that these vehicles, in the course of their inter-State operation, would traverse these portions of the notified routes without hi anyway operating as stage carriages for such portions,
10. Be it noted, in the said case, the application under Section 57(8) of 1939 Act was made for varying conditions of the permit by increasing number of trips on Bangalore - Cuddapah road from one trip per day to two trips per day. Therefore, the Supreme Court came to a conclusion that by permitting the variation sought, the scheme was not violated because the bus would not be traversing the overlapping area, in the sense that after variation the operator shall not be allowed to pick up or set down the passengers on the overlapping area.
11. In Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. Thiru M.A.Egappan, : [1987]2SCR391 , the scheme in question exempted all stage carriage services mentioned in Annexure-II from the scheme. Egappan, who was not one of the existing operators on any part of the route covered by the approved scheme, and who was operating vehicle on a non-scheme route, obtained grant of variation on the route measuring 21.4 Kms. which overlapped the existing scheme. The appellant's appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, and revision before High Court of Madras were dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, reliance was placed on K.S.R.T. Corporation v. B.A Jayaram (supra). After referring to the observations in K.S.R.T. Corporation v. BAJayaram, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the Corporation observing that Egappan is not entitled to operate his stage carriage on the notified route or on any portion thereof even though he has been granted variation of his permit to operate on a sector of the notified route.
12. L. Raghuraman v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad (supra) initially came before the Hon'ble Sri Justice M.N.Rao (as His Lordship then was), who noticed the conflict in the decisions of the Supreme Court in K.S.R.T. Corporation v. B.A. Jayaram and Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. Thiru M.A. Egappan (supra) and referred the matter to a Division Bench/ Full Bench. The matter was set down before the Full Bench, to which I was a member. The Full Bench considered the question whether on a notified route an existing inter-State stage carriage permit holder can seek variation of operation of the notified route which overlaps and which is prohibited by the scheme. The Full Bench referred to Adarsh Travels Bus Service v. State of U.P., : AIR1986SC319 , R.Raghuram v. P. Jayaram Naidu (supra), earlier Full Bench decision of this Court in K. Pamanna v. S. T. A. T (supra), and the decision in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, 1987 (2) ALT 900, and came to the conclusion that where there exists an approved scheme a new permit cannot be granted and that existing inter-State operator cannot be permitted to add new buses and operate more singles. The relevant observations are as follows:
When there exists an approved scheme an exception laid down therein must be strictly construed. When, having regard to the object and purport of Chapter IV-A of the Act, only the existing permit holders have been permitted to operate in their route, they, in our opinion, by reason of filing of an application under Section 57(8) of the Act cannot be permitted to add new buses and operate more singles. To that extent, the legal fiction created in Section 57(8) must be held to be a bar. In Jayaram (supra), as indicated hereinbefore, the effect of Section 57(8) has not been considered in the context of the provisions contained in Chapter-IV-A of the Act.
13. In view of the dicta laid down by the Full Bench as above, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of variation by increase in shuttle trips from Srikakulam to Sarvakota as the same is barred by the schemes referred to hereinabove. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.S.R.T. Corporation. v. K.S.T. Authority (supra) in support of the submission that even if there is approved scheme, variation of inter-State stage carriage permit is not prohibited. The learned Counsel also submits that the Full Bench in L. Raghuraman v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (supra) has not noticed this judgment and therefore to that extent the decision of the Full Bench is not correct. After going through the decision in K.S.R.T. Corporation. v. K.S.T. Authority (supra) thoroughly, I am not able to countenance the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
14. In K.S.R.T. Corporation v. K.S.T. Authority (supra) respondents 2 and 3 were holders of stage carriage permit on inter-State route Bangalore to Madanapalli. They were granted variation of conditions of the permit. K.S.R.T. Corporation was plying the vehicles on a number of inter-State routes located within the State of Karnataka under Kolar pocket scheme. Orders of K.S.R.T. Corporation are challenged on theground that variation is contrary to the said scheme. A Division Bench of Karnataka High Court which heard the two writ petitions considered the question - whether Transport Authority has power to grant variation of the conditions of the inter-State stage carriage permit by increasing number of trips overlapping notified routes and whether the Transport Authority has power to grant variation of the conditions of inter-State stage carriage permits by increasing number of trips overlapping the notified routes beyond the maximum provided in any inter-State agreement. Negativing the various contentions of K.S.R.T. Corporation the writ petitions were dismissed. Before the Supreme Court reliance was placed on Adarsh Travels (supra) in support of the contention that once the scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act came into operation, no person other than State Transport Undertaking could operate notified areas or notified routes except as provided in the scheme itself. The Supreme Court referred to the scheme itself and came to a conclusion that grant of variation is not prescribed under the scheme modified with effect from 10.1.1980 which provided as under
'The State Transport Undertaking will operate the services on all routes to the complete exclusion of other persons except the following: -
(a) and (b) xxxxxxxxx
(c) that operation of services by the permit holders who have already been granted permits by the Transport Authority on the date of publication of the modified scheme on inter-State routes which are included in the inter-State agreement of any other State provided that the operators on such routes shall not be entitled to pick up and set down passengers in such portion of the routes which overlaps on any portion of the notified routes.'
15. Noticing the above scheme theSupreme Court dismissed appeal of K.S.T.Corporation observing as under:
As noticed earlier, the scheme authorises the continued operation of the services by the existing permit holders subject to corridor restrictions. Having heard learned Counsel, we are of the view that the condition imposed in the scheme has not been violated.
16. As seen from the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.S.R.T. Corporation v. K.S.T. Authority (supra) the scheme did not prohibit variation of service by permit holders on inter-State routes provided that the operators on such routes shall not be entitled to pick up and shut down passengers. Passengers in such operations of the route shall not allot on any application of the notified route. The decision in K.S.R.T. Corporation v. K.S.R.T. Authority (supra) came to be decided on the facts and circumstance and with reference to notified scheme therein and the same does not in any way take a decision contrary to the view taken by the Full Bench in L. Raghuraman v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (supra).
17. The notified routes from Srikakulam to Pathapatnam (G.O. Ms. No. 1076/87); Srikakulam to Chapra (G.O. Ms. No. 584/78); and Tekkali to Pathapatnam (G.O. Ms. No. 1147/87) are in force and therefore if variation as sought for by the petitioner for an increase of shuttle trip from Srikakulam to Sarvakota is granted it would certainly be overlapping and would clearly violate the scheme. Further, as observed by the State Transport Authority, inter-State agreement between State of Orissa and State of Andhra Pradesh provides for three round trips only and that that provision is already exhausted. The petitioner sought for increase of shuttle trips from Srikakulam to Sarvakota within the State of Andhra Pradesh. Whether the route - Srikakulam to Sarvakota forms part of inter-State route of Srikakulam and Parlakimundi in which event as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it does not violate inter-State agreement.
18. As per the definition of the route in Section 2(28) of the Act, the route -Srikakulam to Parlakimidi and the route from Srikakulam to Sarvakota are different routes. Merely because the distance to Srikakulam to Sarvakota traverses a part of the route from Srikakulam to Parlakimundi, the same cannot be treated as single route. In Vivek Dwivedi v. Prem Narain (supra) a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwaliar Bench) considered the question in the light of Section 2(38) of the Act and held as under:
The route is an essential ingredient of a permit authorising the plying of motor vehicles on a public highway. It is an abstract concept of line of travel between the terminus and another and is not the same thing as a physical tract between two termini. It is of the essence of a route in respect of which a permit is granted, that it should run from one terminus to another so as to ensure a service between the two termini.... ..There can be no manner of doubtthat a route has two terminals and further as required under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the route must be set out not only in the application form but also in the permit itself. If one of the two terminals is different, it will constitute a different route although the line of travel and the highway traversed might be common to both the routes.
19. The route from Srikakulam to Sarvakota overlaps the existing notified scheme and therefore no permit can be granted to the petitioner by way of variation (See again the observations of the Full Bench in L. Raghuraman 's case) (supra).
20. In the result for the above reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.