K. J. SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) IN this batch of 28 writ petitions the karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ("the Corporation") has challenged the validity of an order of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (" the Tribunal") setting aside the permit on inter-state routes granted to it by the Slate Transport Authority ("sta" ). The facts are not in dispute and may briefly be stated as follows : ( 2 ) UNDER S. 68d (3) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act), two approved Schemes, (1) Bellary Pocket Scheme and (2) Kolar Pocket Scheme were published in the Gazette. Both the Schemes covered specified routes exclusively reserved for the Corporation while staying the existing operators "on inter-state routes. In 1975 the State of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh entered into an agreement under S. 63 of the Act. That inter-state agreement was published simultaneously in the respective Gazettes of the States on september 1, 1975. The routes under part-A of the Appendix to the agreement were reserved to the operators from Karnataka and the routes under Part-B of the appendix were reserved for operators from Andhra Pradesh. The Corporation wanted a permit covering many such routes under Part-A and made an application for the same before the STA. The existing operators in some of those routes asked for variation of the conditions of their permits by grant of additional trips with or without additional vehicles. ( 3 ) THE STA granted the permit to the Corporation covering 8 inter-state routes, and it also granted additional trips to the existing operators on other inter-state routes. ( 4 ) CHALLENGING the said grants, there were appeals and counter-appeals by the corporation and also by the existing operators. The Tribunal clubbed all those appeals and disposed them of by a common order dated September 28, 1977. It allowed the appeals of the existing operators and set aside the permit granted to the corporation. It also allowed the appeals of the Corporation setting aside the variations granted to the existing operators. In this case we are not concerned with the validity of that portion of the order setting aside the grant of variation of the existing operators. It allowed the appeals of the existing operators and set aside the permit granted to the corporation. It also allowed the appeals of the Corporation setting aside the variations granted to the existing operators. In this case we are not concerned with the validity of that portion of the order setting aside the grant of variation of the existing operators. We are concerned only with the legality of that part of the order setting aside the permit of the Corporation ( 5 ) BEFORE examining the contentions urged for the Corporation, it may be useful to refer to the reasons given by the authorities below. The STA has observed that the routes asked for by the par- ties have been covered by the inter-state agreement and so the need to grant permit or additional trip shall be presumed and need not be proved by other evidence. But the Tribunal did not agree with that view. First, it held that the need to grant permit has to be established and not to be assumed notwithstanding the inclusion of the routes under the inter-State agreement. Next, it observed that the Corporation in view of the express provisions under S. 68ff of the Act, is not entitled to the grant of permit on a mixed route, that is a route which is partly notified under the approved scheme and partly not notified. The Tribunal was of the opinion that a grant of permit on such a route will have the effect of violating the approved scheme in the absence of any amendment or modification thereby. The validity of these reasons are challenged by the petitioner. ( 6 ) COUNSEL on both sides except Sri a. S. Viswanath for respondent in WP. No. 1613/78, have a common approach on one of the questions raised for decision. They urged that an enquiry by the STA regarding the need to grant permit on any route included under the inter-state agreement is totally unnecessary and uncalled for and the Tribunal was not justified in holding to the contrary. ( 7 ) I find considerable force in the common contention urged. Sub-section (3a) of S. 63 provides for publication of draft inter-state agreement in the official gazette inviting representations' from the persons set out under the proviso thereunder. ( 7 ) I find considerable force in the common contention urged. Sub-section (3a) of S. 63 provides for publication of draft inter-state agreement in the official gazette inviting representations' from the persons set out under the proviso thereunder. It is implicit thereby that the representations received shall be considered by the State Governments before finalising the agreement approving the number of permits to be granted on the inter-state routes. The agreement finally arrived at shall be published in the official gazette by each of the States concerned as required under sub-section (3b) of S. 63. The said sub-section also makes it obligatory for the transport authorities of each State to give effect to that agreement. The purpose of giving an opportunity for specified persons or authorities to make representations agtinst the draft inter-State agreement, was intended to collect all information of the movement of goods or mobile population between the States concerned. That becomes clear if we peruse the objects and reasons appended to sub- clauses (c) and (d) of the Bill which later became the Amending Act 56 of 1969 inserting sub-section (3a) in S. 63. The objects and reasons read :"there is no uniformity at present in the procedure being followed by the different State Governments in regard to the grant of counter signature of permits in pursuance of the reciprocal agreements into which they enter. It has been represented that the existing operators providing services in the State in which a permit is countersigned do not sometimes get a reasonable opportunity to make representation about the adequacy of the services for traffic available on the routes in question. It has been further represented that once an inter-state agreement is finalised, its revision may become difficult. This amendment requires a State government to publish in its Gazette the draft of an agreement which it proposes to conclude with another state Government for the operation of transport vehicles on any inter-state route and provides an opportunity to the existing operators and other interests concerned to file objections. The agreement is to be finalised after considering the objections and it is to be published in the Gazette before implementation. " ( 8 ) THERE appears to be one more purpose in inserting sub-section (3a) of S. 63. Inter-state agreement covered only inter-state routes. The agreement is to be finalised after considering the objections and it is to be published in the Gazette before implementation. " ( 8 ) THERE appears to be one more purpose in inserting sub-section (3a) of S. 63. Inter-state agreement covered only inter-state routes. Sub-section (3) of S. 47 which empowers the transport authorities in the State to take decisions regarding the number of permits to be granted on routes within their area cannot be invoked to grant permit on inter-state routes. That sub-section stands excluded for opening routes lying in two States. The decision to open inter-state routes could only be taken by agreement between the States. The Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim v. STAT. Madras, AIR. 1970 SC. 1542 at 1548, para 14 observed. :"the relevant authorities in two states or two regions will ensure agreement and act in concert as the case may be. The number of services in the region can of course be fixed by the Regional Transport Authority but they will be for the region only. The number of services for inter-regional or inter-State routes beyond the frontier of the region will have to be determined by agreement. "it is also pertinent to remember that the power to enter into an agreement is vested in the State Governments; and these high contracting parties are expected to be familiar with facts and figures in regard to inter-state movement of goods and traffic. They are therefore, in a better position to decide the number of services to be permitted on inter-state routes. When once such a limit is pro. vided under an agreement 't is unnecessary for the STA. to collect information justifying the need to grant such permits. ( 9 ) THE terms of the agreement concerned in this case also confirms my view. The preamble of the agreement provides : agreement whereas it is decided to regulate the plying of transport vehicles in inter-State routes between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka in supersession of all previous agreements, it is hereby agreed between the States of Andhra Pradesh and karnataka as follows : 1. Stage carriage service :- (a) Inter-State routed for operation of stage carriages of both the States agreed upon shall be as shown in Appendix. The routes specified in the said Appendix shall be operated by the operators of Andhra Pradesh and karnataka States respectively. Stage carriage service :- (a) Inter-State routed for operation of stage carriages of both the States agreed upon shall be as shown in Appendix. The routes specified in the said Appendix shall be operated by the operators of Andhra Pradesh and karnataka States respectively. " the different routes specified in the appendix to the agreement were reserved for operation by the operators of each state. The agreement thus gives a complete picture of the then existing need to regulate the plying of transport vehicles between the two States. ( 10 ) IT seems to me clear that it is unnecessary for the transport authority to go into the question of need before granting permit within the quota provided under that agreement. The Tribunal, therefore, is not right in stating that notwithstanding the agreement providing for grant of permit on the routes set out there in, the STA should independently consider the adequacy of the existing service and the need to grant additional permit on those routes. ( 11 ) THIS takes me to the second question as to the scope of S. 68ff of the act. The Tribunal has taken the view that there is a complete bar under S. 68ff on the Corporation to obtain permit for a route a part of which is only notified under the approved scheme or on a route which has not been fully notified by the approved scheme. That conclusion is non sequitur as rightly contended by the counsel for the Corporation. For immediate reference I may set out that section hereunder. S. 68ff :"where a scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of S. 68d in respect of any notified area or notified route, the State Transport authority or the Regional Transport authority, as the case may be, shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. " (proviso omitted) the section was inserted by Act 56 of 1969 which came into force with effect from March 2. 1970. The intent of the legislature for inserting the above section was only to prohibit the transport authorities from granting permits to private operators on routes notified under the approved scheme because the State transport Undertaking has an exclusive right under Ch. IV-A to get permits on those routes. That appears to be clear from the following Notes on Cl. 1970. The intent of the legislature for inserting the above section was only to prohibit the transport authorities from granting permits to private operators on routes notified under the approved scheme because the State transport Undertaking has an exclusive right under Ch. IV-A to get permits on those routes. That appears to be clear from the following Notes on Cl. 42 appended to the corresponding Bill : " This new section seeks to prohibit the grant of regular permits to private operators after the State Government has approved the scheme prepared by the State Transport Undertaking, in respect of the route on which services are to be operated by that undertaking alone in pursuance of that scheme. Provision has also been made for the grant of temporary permits to private operators till the State Transport Undertaking is able to implement the scheme. " it must be remembered that the Corporation just like any other operator is entitled to apply under Ch. IV of the Act for permit on any route Such a right cannot be denied to the Corporation merely on the ground that the transport authority is required to adhere to the terms of the approved scheme. The right of the Corporation under Ch. IV-A is independent of and quite different from the right under Ch. IV of the Act. In Parbhani Transport Co op. Society v. R. T. A. , Aurangabad, AIR 1960 SC 801 at 804. the Supreme court observed :" The Act lays down two independent sets of provisions in regard to the running of buses by the Government, one under Ch, IV and the other under Ch. IV-A. Ch. IV-A was intended to give the Government, a special advantage, When the government chooses to proceed under that chapter, it becomes entitled as a matter of right under S. 68-FF (1) to the necessary permits. Under ch. IV the Government does not have any such advantage ; it has to compete with other applicants to secure permits to be able to run its buses. "the same view was reiterated by the supreme Court in D. R Venkatachalam v. Deputy Transport Commissioner, air 1977 SC 842 . The scope of S. 68-FF cannot therefore be stretched too far so far as to deny the Corporation its right to come before the concerned transport authority with an application for grant of permit like any other operator. "the same view was reiterated by the supreme Court in D. R Venkatachalam v. Deputy Transport Commissioner, air 1977 SC 842 . The scope of S. 68-FF cannot therefore be stretched too far so far as to deny the Corporation its right to come before the concerned transport authority with an application for grant of permit like any other operator. It has a right to compete with other applicants under Ch. IV of the Act for a permit on any route which has not been notified under any approved scheme. And it is comparitively better placed than the other operators for grant of permit on a route a portion of which has already been notified. The following observation made by this Court in A. S. Gurulingappa v. The RTA. , Hassan etc. , WP. 2287/63 dt. 19-1-66. was similar to this effect :"it will also be open to the state Undertaking to apply to the appropriate Regional Transport Authority for the inter-State permits and plead for preference being given to its application on the ground that it is by virtue of a notified scheme already in a position to operate considerable portion of the route to the exclusion of others, with the result that it would be in a position to render better service to the travelling public than anybody else " ( 12 ) CONSISTENT with this principle, the Act has been amended inserting S. 47 (1h) by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1978 with effect from december 27, 1978. The said section provides:"notwithstanding anything contained in this section, an application for a stage carriage permit from a state transport undertaking for operating in any inter State route shall be given preference over all other applications. : provided that the authority shall not grant a permit under this sub-section unless it is satisfied that the State transport undertaking would be able to operate in the inter-State route without detriment to its responsibility for providing efficient and adequate road transport service in any notified area or notified route as is referred to in sub-section (3) of S 68d where the undertaking operates the service. " ( 13 ) NOW comes the question of relief to be granted in these petitions. The permit granted by the STA to the Corporation was set aside by the Tribunal. " ( 13 ) NOW comes the question of relief to be granted in these petitions. The permit granted by the STA to the Corporation was set aside by the Tribunal. In the view that I have taken, the order of the Tribunal now falis to be set aside. 'ordinarily, the permit granted by the sta should automatically be restored. But there is some difficulty to grant that relief in view of the intervening circumstances. The permit granted to the Corporation by the STA has not yet been issued. In the meantime, the existing operators were granted additional trips on some of the routes asked for by the Corporation. The result is, that the STA cannot now issue the permit for all the vehicles on all the routes as it was originally granted. It must now take into consideration the balance remaining out of the quota provided under the agreement and issue the permit to the Corporation accordingly. ( 14 ) IN the result, the petitions are allowed ; the order of the Tribunal so far as it relates to the setting aside the permit of the Corporation is quashed. The order of the STA is modified with a direction to issue permits to the Corporation in the light of this order. ( 15 ) THE STA shall dispose of the matter within two months from the date of receipt of this order. --- *** --- .