Madon, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation pursuant to a certificate granted by the Karnataka High Court against its Judgment and Order in Writ Appeal No. 949 of 1974 on the following two questions of law:-"1. Whether the conditions of a permit can be varied so as to increase the number of trips and/or the number of vehicles allowed to be operated under that permit 2. Whether the conditions of a permit held by an existing operator on an inter-State route exempted under the Kolar Pocket Scheme, can be varied so as to allow an increase in the number of vehicles operating under that permit -
(2.) Before embarking on a discussion of the above questions, it will be convenient to relate the facts which have given rise to this appeal. On February 2, 1966, the first respondent, B. A. Jayaram, had been granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, a stage carriage permit on the inter-State route Cuddapah in the State of Andhra Pradesh to Bangalore in the State of Karnataka for one trip only and a stage carriage permit No. 20/65-66 in respect of this route was issued to him on Mar. 16, 1966. This permit was countersigned by the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh, on March 21, 1967. By Notification No. S. O. 111 dated Jan. 10, 1968, published in the Mysore Goverment Gazette dated Jan. 25, 1968, the Government of Mysore (now Karnataka) granted its approval under sub-sec. (2) of Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (IV of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") to a scheme set out in the Schedule to the said Notification. The said scheme covered 87 intra-State routes in the State of Karnataka set out in the Appendix to the said scheme. The effect of the said scheme was to nalionalize passenger transport service between Bangalore and various places in the Kolar District as also certain routes within the Kolar District. For this reason, the said scheme was popularly known as the 'Kolar Pocket Scheme'. The class of service covered by the said scheme was "Stage Carriages, Mofussil". Clause 4 of the said scheme inter alia provided as follows: "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 conditions that their permit shall be rendered ineffective for the overlapping portions of the notified routes ..........." The said scheme was implemented with effect from Jan. 1, 1969, by issuing a stage carriage permit to the Appellant under sub-section (1) of Sec. 68-F of the said Act.
(3.) The route between Bangalore and Royalpad in the State of Karnataka formed part of the route between Bangalore and Cuddapah and was covered by the said scheme. Accordingly, the first respondent's permit for the said portion of the Bangalore-Cuddapah route became ineffective with the result that the vehicles operated by the first respondent could not either pick up or set down passengers on the Bangalore-Royalpad portion of the Bangalore-Cuddapah route though they could traverse the said portion. On Jan. 24, 1973, the first respondent made an application to the Karnataka State Road Transport Authority, the second respondent before us, for varying the conditions of the stage carriage permit granted to him by increasing the number of trips on the Bangalore-Cuddapah route from one trip per day to two trips per day. This was apparently done to eliminate an overnight halt at either of the two termini. The said application was rejected by the second respondent on April 22, 1974, as not being maintainable in view of the said scheme, without publishing it for inviting objections thereto. The first respondent thereupon filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, being Writ Petition No. 3360 of 1974, against the said order of the second respondent. On September 25, 1974, the said writ petition was allowed and the court issued a writ of mandamus to the second respondent to dispose of the first respondent's said application in accordance with law, holding that the said scheme did not operate as a bar to increasing the number of trips on an existing inter-State route. In pursuance of the said order of the High Court, the second respondent published the first respondent's said application inviting representations in connection therewith. In the meanwhile the appellant filed on Nov. 27, 1974, a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, being Writ Petition No. 6399 of 1974, to recall the order made in the said Writ Petn. No. 3360 of 1974 and to rehear the said writ petition after impleading the appellant as a respondent thereto. A learned single Judge of the said High Court dismissed the appellant's said writ petition on Dec. 2, 1974, holding that the appellant was not a necessary party to the said Writ Petition No. 3360 of 1974. On December 23/24, 1974, the second respondent granted to the first respondent the additional trip applied for by him. Against the order of the learned single judge dismissing its writ petition, the appellant filed an intra-Court appeal under S. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (Mysore Act V of 1962), being Writ Appeal No. 949 of 1979. The Division Bench, which heard the said appeal, referred the following question to a larger Bench for its opinion: "If the condition of a permit for operating a stage carriage over a route is altered by increasing the maximum number of trips over that route, specified earlier in that permit, does such variation of the condition of the permit amount to grant of a new permit -By its judgment delivered on September 19, 1979, the Full Bench answered the said question as follows: "If the condition of a permit for operating a stage carriage over a route is altered by increasing the maximum number of trips over that route specified earlier in the permit such variation of the condition of the permit does not amount to grant of a new permit.";