- (1.) These appeals along with connected appeals have been placed before the Constitution bench in view of an order of reference made by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court. For appreciating the point regarding which reference has been made, it is necessary to state a few facts. The appellant is a State Road Transport Corporation of the state of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'corporation'). In public interest, the Corporation framed schemes for providing transport services in different regions of the State. We are presently concerned with the West Godavari District of the State. The schemes framed by the Corporation were subsequently approved by the State Government and notified in the official gazette. The scheme which is subject-matter of the present appeals cover the route D. N. R. College (Bhimavaram) to Srinvavruksham. The route falls within the mofussil service which was nationalized under the scheme. The effect of nationalization of the service is that all private operators on the entire length of the service and overlapping routes are completely excluded. No private operator can get permit to ply transport vehicles for hire on routes falling within the service. However, the scheme contains five exceptions for which permits can be issued to private operators. One of the exceptions is in favour of "the existing town services operating on the notified routes". The main issue involved in these appeals is as to whether under the said exception permits can be issued in favour of fresh applicants for permits for town services routes falling on or overlapping with the nationalised mofussil service.
(2.) Respondent no. 3 who is not an existing town service operator, submitted an application to the Regional Transport Authority, west Godavari for permanent stage carriage permit oh the town service route. The appellant - Corporation objected to the grant of permit on the ground that permit was sought on a portion of notified route under the scheme. The Regional Transport authority accepted the objection and rejected the application of respondent no. 3 for grant of permit. Aggrieved by the said order respondent no. 3 filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The tribunal allowed the appeal and directed that a permit be granted to respondent no. 3 on the town service route for which he had applied. The appellant - corporation challenged the said order by filing a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh high Court. The High Court constituted a full Bench to consider the issue in view of divergence of opinion between different benches of the court on the issue. The full Bench of the High Court took the view that town service routes were not automatically covered under the scheme which was specifically for mofussil service. Therefore, it was held that the Regional transport Authority could grant permit on the town service route. The writ petition filed by the appellant - Corporation was dismissed. The present appeals are directed against the said judgment of the full Bench.
(3.) The appeals raise two main issues : (1) The scheme covers mofussil service and provides for total exclusion of private operators including operators on town service routes. Even routes overlapping with the notified mofussil service stood covered. In view of this is it permissible for the Regional transport Authority to grant permits to private operators on the notified town service routes or portions thereof (2) Exception 2 in the Note appended to the scheme is: " the existing town services operating on the notified routes". Does the exception relate only to existing town services operating on the notified routes meaning thereby that fresh or future applicants for grant of permit are excluded ;