- (1.) The appellant (since deceased) submitted an application for grant of permit on Srikantapuram to bechaganapalli. The length of this route is 15.8 kilometers. The said route is substantially overlapped by three notified routes known as Hindupur-Nambulipulikunta (via) Somandepalli, Penukoda, kothaveruvu, Bukkapatnam, Pamudurthi, mudigubba, Mulakavemula and Kadiri. The notified scheme of the aforesaid routes provides that the holder of existing and future stage carriage permit in respect of town service route shall be permitted to overlap the notified route upto 8 kilometers. The Regional Transport Authority, anantapur by a Resolution dated 26-3- 1983 granted temporary permit to the appellant under Section 68 F (1-C) of the motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The other applicants whose applications were rejected as well as the Andhra Pradesh State transport Corporation filed revision petition against the grant of permit to the appellant. However, the said revisions were rejected by the Tribunal. Thereafter the andhra Pradesh State Transport corporation filed a writ petition challenging the grant of permit to the appellant. A Full bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition and held that no permit under Section 68 F (l-C) could be granted. Consequently, the grant of permit to the appellant was set aside. It is against the said judgment, the appellant is in appeal before us.
(2.) In C. A. No. 6223/90 on 10-10-2000 we have taken a view that where there is a notified route and the scheme provides complete exclusion, no permit can be granted under Section 68 F (1-C) of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that in the present case the scheme permits for grant of future stage carriage permit on the notified route and therefore the grant of permit to the appellant was in accordance with law. This argument has no merit. The scheme itself provides that the future permit could be granted only to the extent of 8 kms on the notified route and not beyond that. Admittedly, the appellant was allowed to ply on notified route upto 11.8 kms. Consequently this grant was invalid.
(3.) For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order stands vacated.;