Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. These three Original Petitions are filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'. 2. The challenge by the Corporation is against the order of the State Transport Authority, Kerala granting permits/counter-signature in favour of the contesting respondents to operate contract carriages in interstate route covering nationalised routes in Kerala State and the common judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam (Ext. P5 in O.P. 4679 of 1994) confirming the order of the State Transport Authority. 3. The contesting respondents applied for grant of permits/ counter signature of the permits granted by other State Transport Authority. Those were objected to before the S.T.A. by the K.S.R.T.C. as is seen from Ext. P4 in O.P. 4679 of 1994, on the ground that contract carriage permit cannot be granted on a particular route. The contention was not accepted by the State Transport Authority. Accordingly, the State Transport Authority either granted the permit or affixed the counter-signature. This gave rise to several revisions by the Corporation before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal considered all the revision petitions and disposed of them by Ext. P5 in O.P. 4679 of 1994, upholding the order of the S.T.A. A reading of the common judgment reveals that in addition to the ground taken by the Corporation before the S.T.A. a further ground with regard to the exclusion of private operators in the area/route concerned on the basis of a notified scheme was also taken up before the Tribunal. Both the contentions were examined by the Tribunal and the revision petitions were dismissed as per the common judgment. It is in the above circumstances, the Corporation has approached this Court with these writ petitions. 4. Before-me also, the self same two contentions are urged namely,(i) no contract carriage permit can be granted in respect of a particular route and (ii) no contract carriage permit can be granted as portion of the route as covered by a notified scheme to the exclusion of private operators. 5. 4. Before-me also, the self same two contentions are urged namely,(i) no contract carriage permit can be granted in respect of a particular route and (ii) no contract carriage permit can be granted as portion of the route as covered by a notified scheme to the exclusion of private operators. 5. 'Contract carriage' is defined in S.2(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) as follows: "Contract carriage" means a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward and is engaged under a contract, whether expressed or implied, for the use of such vehicle as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein and entered into by a person with a holder of a permit in relation to such vehicle or any person authorised by him in this behalf on a fixed or an agreed rate ". The grant of such permit is governed by S.74. Clause (i) to sub-s.(2) provides that the Authority granting permit shall attach to the permit a condition that "the vehicle shall be used only in a specified area or on a specified route or routes". This makes it clear that a contract carriage permit can be granted for a route as well. Therefore, the first contention raised by the counsel does not have any legal basis in the light of the express position in the statute itself. 6. The next is, whether grant of contract carriage permits is excluded by reason of the notified Scheme? A portion of the routes in question is covered by the notified scheme is not disputed before me by the contesting respondents. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that S.103(2) of the Act provides for a total exclusion of application for permits by any reason other than the Corporation for the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified area or route or any part thereof. It is also pointed out that the Section does not make any differentiation between application for grant of contract carriage permit or stage carriage permit. In such case, when there is an approved scheme, the State Transport Authority should not have granted permit to the contesting respondents even to operate contract carriages along the route covered by the approved scheme. It is also pointed out that the Section does not make any differentiation between application for grant of contract carriage permit or stage carriage permit. In such case, when there is an approved scheme, the State Transport Authority should not have granted permit to the contesting respondents even to operate contract carriages along the route covered by the approved scheme. Therefore, the orders passed by the State Transport Authority either granting permit or affixing counter-signature and its confirmation by the Appellate Tribunal in Ext. P5 mentioned above are illegal and liable to be quashed, according to the counsel. 7. This contention is answered by the contesting respondents, referring to S.99 of the Act, which provides for preparation and publication of proposals regarding road transport service of a State Transport Undertaking. The nature of the service proposed to be rendered by such undertaking is an improvement consideration. The 'Exclusion clause' in S.103(2) shall be examined taking into account such "nature of service proposed" by the Corporation. Elucidating this point, counsel for the contesting respondents referred to R.236 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. Similar provision was there in the earlier rules as well. That rule relates to the manner of notifying schemes. It shall be in Form No. "A". Item No. 3 in Schedule to Form 'A', which was also the same as in the earlier rules, provides to mention "Class of service - (stage carriage/ contract carriage/Goods Carriage, mofussil or city or town service - in the case of the stage carriage)." The earlier rules also contained the same item in the schedule with a slight modification that instead of "Goods Carriage" what is mentioned is "public carrier". That is not relevant for the issue on hand. But it is evident from the said item in the schedule that the scheme shall specify whether it relates to mofussil or city or town service, when it is relating to the stage carriages. Ext. P4 in O.P. 4679 of 1994 is one among the scheme so approved. Item No. 3 mention as follows: "Whether town service or mofussil service - mofussil service". As already mentioned above, the scheme should specify whether it covers town service or mofussil service, when it is in respect of stage carriages. Otherwise mofussil service need not be mentioned. Thus, it is clear that Ext. Item No. 3 mention as follows: "Whether town service or mofussil service - mofussil service". As already mentioned above, the scheme should specify whether it covers town service or mofussil service, when it is in respect of stage carriages. Otherwise mofussil service need not be mentioned. Thus, it is clear that Ext. P1 and other schemes are in respect of mofussil service and thereby it is confined to stage carriages and does not cover any other type of carriages including contract carriages. In other words, the scheme shall always be in respect of the nature of the service proposed to be rendered by the Corporation. Only mofussil service comes within "stage carriages". Not even city or town service, which also come within stage carriages. The nature of service mentioned in the scheme, therefore, does not cover contract carriages. 8. S.103(2) of course contain an exclusion clause. State Transport Authority may refuse to entertain any application for grant of renewal of any other permit or reject any such application for permit when there is a scheme, but such refusal shall be, as mentioned in sub-s.2 of S.103, "for the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme". The approved scheme as already found above is only in respect of mofussil service of stage carriages. To give effect to such scheme, the exclusion shall necessarily be in entertaining any application for grant of stage carriage permits for such mofussil services. For giving effect to a scheme covering only mofussil service, the State Transport Authority need not refuse to entertain application for contract carriages permits. 9. Therefore, the State Transport Authority can grant contract carriage permits in respect of a route covered by a notified scheme for mofussil service only. Therefore, I find no illegality in the orders of the State Transport Authority or in the common judgment, Exts. P5 referred to above, confirming such orders of the State Transport Authority. The Original Petition, therefore, fails. It is accordingly dismissed.