Order: 1. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Transport for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondents No.3 in all the Writ Petitions. 2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh approved a scheme of road transport services on the route Bapatla Amaravathi (via) Ponnur and Guntur (85 kilometres) and published the same in G.O.Ms.No.313, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Tr.IV), dated 28.06.1990. It is a mofussil service/stage carriage. While publishing the scheme, it was stated that the scheme shall not affect (i) the State Transport Undertakings, (ii) the holders of stage carriage permits for a distance not exceeding 5 kms on the notified routes, (iii) the existing town services operating on the notified route, (iv) the existing services operating on the Inter-State routes incorporated in the concluded Inter-State agreements U/s. 63 (3B) of M.V. Act, 1939 and (v) the services operated by the Devasthanams. 3. The respondents No.3 in these Writ Petitions applied to the second respondent for grant of a pucca stage carriage permit on the existing town service route i.e., RTC Bus Stand to Gorantla (via) Old Bus Stand, Municipal Market, Naaz Centre, AC College, Taluka Office, B.Ed. College, Rama Buildings, Telecom Nagar and I.D. Hospital. The total length of the route is 8.1 kms and the distance within the municipal limits is 6 kms. The overlapping portion of the scheme is 7 kms. The Writ Petitioner objected to the grant of the above permit on the plea that the permitted overlapping is only 5 kms according to the scheme in G.O.Ms.No.313 dated 28.06.1990 in respect of the holders of stage carriage permits on the notified route and in the instant case, since the overlapping is 7 kms, the permit should not be granted. Accepting the said objection, the second respondent rejected the applications of respondents No.3 by his orders dated 14.10.2009. Challenging the orders of the second respondent, the respondents No.3 preferred appeals before the first respondent. 4. Before the first respondent, it was contended that since the respondents No.3 are saved operators under note 3 of the scheme, they are entitled for a permit. The Writ Petitioner contended that the respondents No.3 are entitled to ply their previous buses, but they are not entitled for a fresh permit. 4. Before the first respondent, it was contended that since the respondents No.3 are saved operators under note 3 of the scheme, they are entitled for a permit. The Writ Petitioner contended that the respondents No.3 are entitled to ply their previous buses, but they are not entitled for a fresh permit. It is further contended that the existing town service is saved, but additional permit cannot be granted to the respondents No.3. The Writ Petitioner relied on a decision in APSRTC V. Regional Transport Authority (2005) 4 SCC 391 ). However, the first respondent allowed the appeals on the ground that the respondents No.3 are existing operators operating one bus on the existing route and since they fall under note 3 of the scheme published in G.O.Ms.No.313 dated 28.06.1990 and directed the second respondent to issue pucca stage carriage permit in favour of the respondents No.3, by orders dated 17.09.2010. The said orders are challenged in the present Writ Petitions. 5. The learned counsel for petitioner relied on Section 103 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) and submitted that after notification of the scheme and granting a permit in favour of the State transport undertaking, the existing permits would be modified and restrictions should placed on grant of permits in respect of the notified area or notified route. What were saved are only 5 types of services indicated in the notification. The respondents No.3 are existing town service operators on the notified route and the words existing town services in note 3 of the scheme indicates the town services operating on the existing notified route only and no fresh permit can be issued. The distance restriction indicated is not applicable in respect of the services under note 3 and it applies to the services under note 2 only. Each category is distinct and separate and no two categories can be clubbed together and viewed for the grant of permit. Though there is a overlapping of 7 Kms., in the instant case on which ground the second respondent refused to grant permit, the said ground is not available to the second respondent who comes under note 3, as such ground would be available only while considering the case of the persons covering under category 2. 6. Though there is a overlapping of 7 Kms., in the instant case on which ground the second respondent refused to grant permit, the said ground is not available to the second respondent who comes under note 3, as such ground would be available only while considering the case of the persons covering under category 2. 6. He drew the attention of this Court to the observations in para 13 of the judgment in the aforesaid decision, which reads as follows. 13. Next it was contended on behalf of respondent No. 3 that the second exception covers all town services and should not be confined to existing services. This means fresh applicants for town service routes should be given permits. In our view this submission is not tenable in view of clear wordings of the exception. The exception refers to existing town services operating on notified routes. The words `existing' and `operating' have to be given their due meaning. These words make it clear that the exception applies to only those who were already operating the service and not to future applicants like respondent No. 3. To illustrate, reference may be made to exception No. 2 contained in the Scheme which was subject matter of APSRTC v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors., [1998] 7 SCC 353. There the exception is for "the holders of stage carriage permits in respect of town services." Expression "holders of stage carriage permits" has a wider connotation. Even future applicants can be said to be holders of permits and thus eligible for grant of permits. In contrast the exception to the Scheme in the present case refers to existing town services operators only. In C. Kasturi and Ors. v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and Anr., [1996] 8 SCC 314 the exception runs as under: "1. ............ 2. The holders of the existing stage carriage permits in respect of town service routes. 3. The holders of the future stage carriage permits in respect of town service routes having an over-lapping of not more than 8 Kms on the notified routes. 4. ........... 5. ............." 7. The learned Counsel for the respondents No.3 on the other hand submitted that admittedly the respondents No.3 are existing operators and they come under exception No.3 of the scheme. There is no bar in applying for fresh permit by an existing operator. 4. ........... 5. ............." 7. The learned Counsel for the respondents No.3 on the other hand submitted that admittedly the respondents No.3 are existing operators and they come under exception No.3 of the scheme. There is no bar in applying for fresh permit by an existing operator. In the case of the existing operator, the restriction on the extent of overlapping does not apply. The persons under exempted categories, who file applications for extra permit, must show public interest as otherwise the State transport undertakings by their monopoly may not cater to the larger needs of the public. He also submitted that in the para 21 of the reported decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Honble Supreme Court clearly held that in case of holders of stage carriage permits, the future applicants also can be said to be holders of permits and eligible for grant of permits. He relied upon the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in KSRTC, Banglore V. B.A.Jayaram ( AIR 1984 SC 790 (1) and KSRTC, Bangalore V. Karnataka State Transport Authority, Bangalore ( AIR 1987 SC 711 ). But they are not relevant for consideration in the present case in view of the clear position of law enunciated by the Honble Supreme Court in Regional Transport Authority’s case (1 supra). 8. Section 103 of the Act reads as follows: 103. Issue of permits to State Transport Undertakings. But they are not relevant for consideration in the present case in view of the clear position of law enunciated by the Honble Supreme Court in Regional Transport Authority’s case (1 supra). 8. Section 103 of the Act reads as follows: 103. Issue of permits to State Transport Undertakings. (1) Where, in pursuance of an approved scheme, any State Transport Undertaking applies in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf for a stage carriage permit or a good carriage permit or a contract carriage permit in respect of a notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority in any case where the said area or route lies in more than one region and the Regional Transport Authority in any other case shall issue such permit to the State Transport Undertaking, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter V. (2) For the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority or, as the case may be, the Regional Transport Authority concerned may, by order - (a) refuse to entertain any application for the grant or renewal of any other permit or reject any such application as may be pending; (b) cancel any existing permit; (c) modify the terms of any existing permit so as to- (i) render the permit ineffective beyond a specified date; (ii) reduce the number of vehicles authorised to be used under the permit; (iii) curtail the area or route covered by the permit in so far as such permit relates to the notified area or notified route. (3) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no appeal shall lie against any action taken, or order passed, by the State Transport Authority or any Regional Transport Authority under sub- section (1) of sub-section (2). 9. A reading of the provisions of the Act makes it clear that the competent authority is empowered to refuse to entertain any application for the grant or renewal of any other permit or cancel any existing permit and modify the terms of any existing permit in order to give effect to the approved scheme. 10. The approved scheme was notified in G.O.Ms.No.313 dated 28.06.1990 in respect of Bapatla to Amaravathi and it is a mofussil route. 10. The approved scheme was notified in G.O.Ms.No.313 dated 28.06.1990 in respect of Bapatla to Amaravathi and it is a mofussil route. The present controversy relates to a town service route by existing operators, who sought additional permit. The scheme provided certain exceptions to certain category of services. A reading of the exceptions indicate that each category is different and distinct and if they are all read together, such difference can be discerned. They alone were sought to be saved as on the notified date. They should be in operation on the notified date. The exempted categories indicated in G.O.Ms.No.313 dated 28.06.1990 under category 2 and 3 were the same categories which were considered by the Honble Supreme Court, but under different categories of 3 and 2 respectively. In paras 13 and 14 in Regional Transport Authoritys case (1 supra), the Honble Supreme Court clearly held that in case of existing town service operators, they are not entitled to any additional permit, whereas in the case of holder of stage carriage permits, future applicants are also eligible for grant of permits. No doubt a reading of paras 14 and 21 creates some confusion, but the observations made in para 21 were in relation to the comment made on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court, but the point of law is clearly enunciated in paras 13 and 14 in categorical terms. The Honble Supreme Court held that the exception applies only in case of existing town services operators. The question of distance of overlapping is irrelevant under the said category and therefore the existing town services operators are barred from applying for fresh permit irrespective of the distance. The respondents No.3 come under a category mentioned in note 3, but not under note 2 in the notification and thus disentitled to apply for a fresh permit. 11. In view of the clear position of law, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders passed by the first respondent dated 17.09.2010 are set aside. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any in these Writ Petitions, shall stand closed.