JUDGMENT : A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The writ appeals arise from a common judgment dated 15.03.2018 of a learned single judge, allowing the writ petitions preferred by private stage carriage operators, seeking a consideration of their applications for variation/extension of their temporary route permits, on non-notified routes. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation is the appellant in the appeals, and they impugn the aforesaid judgment on the ground that the directions contained therein militate against the express provisions of clause (4) of the Scheme dated 25.03.2017, framed under Section 99 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. When the writ appeals came up for admission before us, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents in the writ appeals that, writ petitions have been filed challenging the validity of clause (4) of the Scheme dated 25.03.2017, and as the pleadings in the said writ petitions were complete, the writ petitions were ripe for hearing. As a decision in the said writ petitions will have a bearing on the writ appeals as well, we called for the pending writ petitions on the aforesaid issue, and it is thus that the writ petitions and the writ appeals are before us now. 3. We shall first deal with the writ petitions, and for that purpose, W.P.(C) No. 11825 of 2017 is taken as the lead case. Consequently, the reference to facts and exhibits is from the said writ petition. 4. The writ petitioners are holders of regular permits to conduct stage carriage services on select routes that had been reserved for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation [KSRTC] under a Scheme for Nationalisation in terms of Section 99 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said Scheme [Ext.P5] dated 14.7.2009 was one that was finalised pursuant to a round of litigation that was initiated against the finalisation of an earlier Draft Scheme dated 9.5.2007 [Ext.P2]. As per Ext.P5 Scheme, which was a Route Centric Scheme, regular permits that had been issued in the private sector prior to 9.5.2006, could be renewed only subject to the State Transport Undertaking [hereinafter referred to as the “STU”] not offering a substitute service in the vacancy that resulted. It was also clarified that regular permits issued after 9.5.2006, would not be renewed, and only temporary permits would be issued after expiry of the validity of the regular permits already issued. It was also clarified that regular permits issued after 9.5.2006, would not be renewed, and only temporary permits would be issued after expiry of the validity of the regular permits already issued. Clause (4) of Ext.P5 Scheme reads as follows : 4. Whether the services are to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking to the exclusion of other persons or otherwise : Yes, the permits issued in the private sector on or before 9-5-2006 will be allowed to continue till the dates of expiry of the respective permits. Thereafter regular permits will be granted to them. When the State Transport Undertaking applies for introducing new services in the above routes, corresponding number of existing private stage carriage permits in the said routes whose permits expire first after filing application by the State Transport Undertaking shall not be renewed. As regards permits issued after 9-5-2006 temporary permits alone shall be issued afresh on expiry in these routes or any portion thereof till such time the State Transport Undertaking replaces with new services. The decision of the State Transport Undertaking to apply for permits to replace the existing Stage carriages as above shall be taken by the Chief Executive of the State Transport Undertaking. 5. Although Ext.P5 Scheme was also challenged through writ petitions, the said writ petitions were dismissed, and Ext.P5 Scheme attained finality. While so, a fresh Scheme [Ext.P7] was published on 16.7.2013. This Scheme was a Service Centric Scheme whereby, the right to operate all classes of services, other than ordinary service, in respect of stage carriages in the State of Kerala, was given exclusively to the STU [KSRTC]. While the said Scheme was also impugned through various writ petitions, the said writ petitions were also dismissed and the said Scheme too attained finality. Effectively therefore, Ext.P5 Scheme in relation to 31 routes, and Ext.P7 Scheme that reserved all higher classes of services to the KSRTC, governed the rights of private stage carriage operators on the notified routes and in respect of the notified services. Through Ext.P8 Notification, the State Government also amended the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, substituting the definition of other services so as to make it in tune with Ext.P7 Scheme that was notified. 6. Through Ext.P8 Notification, the State Government also amended the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, substituting the definition of other services so as to make it in tune with Ext.P7 Scheme that was notified. 6. On account of the combined operation of Exts.P5 and P7 Schemes, the stage carriage operators in the private sector faced many difficulties since, their operations were limited to ordinary services, save for those permits that were protected under Exts.P5 and P7 Schemes. With a view to mitigate the hardship caused to the private operators, the State Government issued Ext.P9 Government Order dated 20.8.2015, which envisaged the grant of Ordinary Limited Stop services [hereinafter referred to as 'OLS services'] permits to all operators who were operating higher class of services, and who were denied a renewal of such permits pursuant to Ext.P7 Scheme. The Government Order made it clear that the permits would be granted in terms of the order notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (4) of Ext.P5 extracted above. The Government Order also indicated that necessary amendments would be made to Ext.P5 Scheme, as also to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, so as to give effect to the proposals in Ext.P9 Government Order. 7. The State Government thereafter issued Ext.P10 Draft Notification dated 8.2.2016 for modifying Ext.P5 Scheme. Clause (4) of the Draft Notification proposed that all permits in the Private Sector on or before 14.7.2009 will be permitted to operate as either Ordinary service or Ordinary Limited Stop service. It was also made clear that the maximum distance in Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules would not apply to the saved permits. Thereafter, on 19.2.2016, through Ext.P11 Notification, a draft amendment to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules was proposed, whereby, a new definition for “Ordinary Limited Stop services” was inserted in Rule 2, without any restriction as regards maximum distance, but making it clear that the vehicle used for such services could not be older than 10 years from the date of registration of the vehicle. In response to the Draft Notifications proposing the modification of Ext.P5 Scheme, as also an amendment to the Motor Vehicle Rules, objections were filed, and after a consideration of the said objections, the State Government proceeded to issue Ext.P12 Notification dated 15.3.2017, notifying the definition of “ Ordinary Limited Stop Service” with a prescription of maximum distance of 140 kilometres, but taking away the stipulation with regard to the age of the vehicle that had to be used for the services in question. Similarly, by Ext.P13 Notification dated 23.3.2017, the Draft Scheme for modifying Ext.P5 Scheme was finalised introducing a new restriction namely, that the maximum distance in Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules would apply to saved permits. 8. In the writ petitions, Exts.P12 and P13 Notifications are impugned primarily on the contention that, while finalising the Draft Scheme and the Draft Rules, the principles of natural justice, that had to be observed through the procedures contemplated under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, were not followed, thereby resulting in the Notification of a Scheme/Rule that was not valid for non-compliance with the statutory procedure. For appreciating the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petitions, a comparative chart showing the proposed amendment and the notified amendment, of Ext.P5 Scheme, as also the proposed amendment to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules and the notified amendment to the Rules is given below: Comparative Chart showing modification of Ext.P5 Scheme As per Ext.P5 Scheme As per the Draft Notification proposing amendment As per the finalised amendment [Ext.P13] Whether the services are to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking to the exclusion of other persons or otherwise Yes, the permits issued in the private sector on or before 9th May, 2006 will be allowed to continue till the dates of expiry of the respective permits. Thereafter regular permits will be granted to them. When the State Transport Undertaking applies for introducing new services in the above routes, corresponding number of existing private stage carriage permits in the said routes whose permits expire first after filing application by the State Transport Undertaking shall not be renewed. As regards permits issued after 9th May, 2006 temporary permits alone shall be issued afresh on expiry in these routes or any portion thereof till such time the State Transport Undertaking replaces with new services. As regards permits issued after 9th May, 2006 temporary permits alone shall be issued afresh on expiry in these routes or any portion thereof till such time the State Transport Undertaking replaces with new services. The decision of the State Transport Undertaking to apply for permits to replace the existing Stage Carriages as above shall be taken by the Chief Executive of the State Transport Undertaking. Yes, partially. The permits granted in the Private Sector as on 14.07.2009 will be permitted to operate as Ordinary or Limited Stop Ordinary Service. The maximum distance prescribed in the Rule 2(oa) in the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 shall not apply to these saved permits provided that further extension or variation shall not be allowed under any circumstance. This scheme shall not affect the operation of other State Transport Undertaking. Yes, partially. The permits granted in the Private Sector as on 14th July, 2009 will be permitted to operate as Ordinary or Ordinary Limited Stop Service. The maximum distance prescribed in the rule 2(oa) in the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 shall apply to these saved permits provided that further extension or variation shall not be allowed under any circumstance. This scheme shall not affect the operation of other State Transport Undertaking. Comparative Chart showing amendment to the Rule Amendment of the Rules: In the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in rule 2, (i) sub clause (oa) shall; be relettered as (ob) (ii) for the existing sub-clause (oa), the following sub clause shall be substituted namely:- “(oa) “Ordinary Limited Stop” service means a service, which is operated on a route with limited number of stops having at least one stop in every fare stage and the vehicle used for service shall not use older than ten years from the date of its original registration.” Amendment of the Rules:- In the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in Rule 2, sub clause (oa) shall be relettered as sub-clause (ob) and before sub-clause (ob) as so relettered, the following sub-clause shall be inserted, namely:- “(oa) “Ordinary Limited Stop Service” means a service, which is operated on a route with limited number on a route having a distance of not exceeding 140 Kilometres with limited number of stops, having atleast one stop in every fare stage.” 9. We have heard Adv. Sri. We have heard Adv. Sri. P.Deepak and other learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the writ petitions, Sri. Keerthivas and Sri. P.C. Chacko, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the KSRTC and the learned Government Pleader Sri. Santhosh Kumar appearing on behalf of the State Government. 10. The petitioners in the writ petitions are essentially aggrieved by two events viz. (i) the finalization of a scheme (Ext.P13), that modifies the earlier scheme dated 14.07.2009 (Ext.P5), in a manner different from what was proposed in the draft scheme (Ext.P10), and (ii) the amendment of the KMV Rules through the notification dated 15.03.2017 (Ext.P12), in a manner different from what was proposed in the draft notification dated 19.02.2016 (Ext.P11). It is the case of the petitioners that the statutory procedure, prescribed under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act and the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, mandates that, while notifying or modifying a scheme under S.100/102 or amending a Rule in terms of Section 212 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a draft is first published, the objections and suggestions received from various stakeholders considered by the State Government, and only thereafter, the Scheme finalised, or amended Rule notified. It is contended that the statutory procedure is aimed at ensuring transparency and fairness in the matter of deprivation of pre-existing rights and hence, the procedure followed cannot result in the finalization of a scheme, or amendment of a Rule, in a manner different from what was proposed through the draft scheme, or the draft amendment that was notified. This is stated to be more so when the changes brought about are prejudicial to the interests of the stakeholders. Re: Challenge to the Scheme 11. With specific reference to the modifications effected to Ext.P5 Scheme, it is contended that, while under the said scheme, a cut-off date of 09.05.2006 was fixed, and regular permits issued in the private sector prior to the said date were permitted to be renewed only till such time as the STU offered a substitute service in the vacancy, in the case of regular permits issued after the cut-off date, no renewal thereof was permitted, but temporary permits could be granted after the expiry of the regular permit. Thus limited rights were retained for the holders of the aforesaid “saved permits”. Thus limited rights were retained for the holders of the aforesaid “saved permits”. Thereafter, Ext.P7 scheme dated 16.07.2013 was notified, whereby the right to operate all classes of services, other than ordinary services in the State of Kerala, was conferred exclusively on the STU, and noticing the plight of the operators in the private sector, the State Government, by Ext.P9 Government Order dated 20.08.2015, decided to grant Ordinary Limited Stop Services (OLSS) permits to all operators who were operating higher class services and who were denied renewal pursuant to Ext.P7. These permits were to be granted notwithstanding the restrictive conditions in clause (4) of Ext.P5 scheme. It was thereafter, and in the above factual backdrop, that a modification to Ext.P5 scheme was proposed, through Ext.P10 draft scheme, where under, all permit holders in the private sector, on or before 14.07.2009, would be permitted to operate as either ordinary service or OLSS, with the rider that the maximum distance specified in R.2 (oa) of the KMV Rules, would not apply to the said saved permits. The said rider, however, was deleted in the finalised scheme and the maximum distance in Rule 2 (oa) was held applicable to the saved permits. Reliance is placed on the decision of this court in Vijayan P.K. v. Government of Kerala and Others - [ 2008 (3) KHC 566 ] to contend that, insofar as the notified scheme varied substantially from the proposal published, and the introduction of the maximum distance rule to the saved permits was without notice to the affected parties, the same was in violation of the rules of natural justice and the introduction of the new condition cannot be legally sustained. 12. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent STU that, the exercise that was commenced through Ext.P10 draft notification was to modify Ext.P5 scheme and hence, the pre-existing rights that the private operators had were only those rights that were saved to them in Ext.P5 scheme. 12. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent STU that, the exercise that was commenced through Ext.P10 draft notification was to modify Ext.P5 scheme and hence, the pre-existing rights that the private operators had were only those rights that were saved to them in Ext.P5 scheme. The contention, in other words, is that the rights that were granted to them through Ext.P9 G.O., cannot be seen as flowing from Ext.P5 scheme and, therefore, since Ext.P10 draft scheme and Ext.P13 finalised scheme only granted additional rights to the holders of saved permits, they cannot be seen as prejudiced on account of the distance restriction introduced, in respect of a class of permit to which they did not have any previous entitlement. 13. On a consideration of the submissions made on this issue, we find that the law governing the formulation of schemes is to be found in Sections 99 and 100 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act. The said provisions mandate that, if the State Government is of the opinion that, for the purpose of providing efficient, adequate, economical and properly guaranteed road transport services in relation to any area or route or operation thereto, these road transport services should be run and operated by the STU’s to the exclusion, either complete or partial, of private stage carriage operators, a proposal in the official gazette shall be published as provided under Section 99 of the Act. Objections to the said proposal will be invited before the State Government under Section 100, and after considering the objections and after affording an opportunity to the objectors or their representatives, and the representatives of the STU, the State government may approve or modify such proposals. The same procedure is followed for the purposes of modifying an existing scheme, as seen from Section 102. 14. The provisions of Sections 99, 100 and 102 indicate that the procedure to be followed, while introducing a scheme, or modifying an existing one, is one that is designed to ensure transparency and fairness in a matter involving pre-existing rights of private transport operators. It follows, therefore, that there cannot be any finalization of a scheme, which is different from the one that was proposed, and in respect of which objections were invited. It follows, therefore, that there cannot be any finalization of a scheme, which is different from the one that was proposed, and in respect of which objections were invited. The introduction of a restrictive element (in the instant case, the stipulation that the maximum distance limit would apply to the saved permits), while finalising a draft that did not contain such a stipulation has, therefore, to be seen as breaching the aforesaid statutory safeguard. A question arises, however, as to whether, in these cases, the petitioners had a pre-existing right, relatable to Ext.P5 scheme, to operate ordinary and OLS services without any restriction as regards distance? Although the learned counsel for the respondent KSRTC would vehemently contend that the said rights accrued to the private operators, not through Ext.P5 scheme, but only through Ext.P9 G.O., we are of the view that the rights/privileges granted to the petitioners through Ext.P9 G.O. cannot be seen as divorced from Ext.P5. 15. As already noted, Ext.P9 G.O. was issued in the wake of Ext.P7 scheme, that deprived private operators of their right to operate higher class of services in the State, and the rights granted through the G.O. were with a view to ameliorate their situation. The rights that they obtained, in respect of stage carriage operation, were pursuant to Ext.P5 scheme on notified routes and Ext.P9 G.O. for operation in the State. The modification proposed by the State, through Ext.P10 notification, was with a view to incorporate their rights, as obtained through Ext.P9 G.O., in Ext.P5 Scheme, through the modification procedure under Section 102. It is in this backdrop that we have to consider the pre-existing rights of the private transport operators, prior to the modification process. 16. Thus viewed, the conclusion is inescapable that, Ext.P10 draft scheme proposed to retain the rights obtained by the private operators through Ext.P9 G.O, while modifying Ext.P5 Scheme, and while finalising the said draft scheme, the State Government could not have made the stipulation with regard to maximum distance applicable to the permits saved by Ext.P5 scheme. We therefore find in favour of the petitioners on the said issue and quash Clause (4) of Ext.P13 scheme that makes the maximum distance in Rule 2 (oa) of the KMV Rules applicable to the saved permits. Re: Challenge to the amendment of the Rule 17. We therefore find in favour of the petitioners on the said issue and quash Clause (4) of Ext.P13 scheme that makes the maximum distance in Rule 2 (oa) of the KMV Rules applicable to the saved permits. Re: Challenge to the amendment of the Rule 17. As regards the challenge in the writ petitions to the validity of the amendments brought about to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules through Ext.P12 notification, it needs to be noted that the contentions raised are more or less identical to those raised in respect of the challenge to the modified scheme. It is contended that, insofar as Rule 2 (oa), as amended, contained a stipulation of maximum distance of 140 km, in the definition of Ordinary Limited Stop Services, but this stipulation was not there in the draft Rule that was notified through Ext.P11 notification, the principles of natural justice, as envisaged in the statutory procedure, had been breached, thereby vitiating the amendment and rendering it invalid. Although, at first blush, it appeared to us that the same reasons that led to the quashing of the impugned clause in the modified scheme would lead us to hold the amended Rule also as invalid, we find on a closer scrutiny, that the right to operate ordinary and OLS services, without distance restrictions, was one that accrued to private operators affected by Exts.P5 and P7 schemes, in terms of the said schemes, read with Ext.P9 G.O. In other words, there was no pre-existing right in the private operators, conferred under the MV Act and Rules, to operate an OLS service. 18. Such being the case, the draft amendment introduced, for the first time, a definition of Ordinary Limited Stop Service in the Rules. Although the definition contained in the draft notification did not stipulate a maximum distance, it is difficult to conceive of any objection that a private operator could have raised against the introduction of a new class of service for the first time. Similarly, the private operators could not have insisted that, the OLS service that was being introduced, had to be one without any stipulation as to maximum distance, for that would tantamount to dictating a policy to the State Government. Similarly, the private operators could not have insisted that, the OLS service that was being introduced, had to be one without any stipulation as to maximum distance, for that would tantamount to dictating a policy to the State Government. Under the circumstances, we cannot accept the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that, in introducing a stipulation as regards maximum distance, while finalising the draft Rules, the State Government had breached the statutory procedure. We also note that, as a matter of fact the State Government did consider the objections raised with regard to the stipulation, in the draft Rule, that the vehicle used for the OLS service could not be older than ten years from the date of registration, and removed the said stipulation from the definition of OLS service while notifying the amended Rule. We therefore reject the challenge to the validity of the amendment, and to Ext.P12 notification that notified the same. The writ petitions are thus partly allowed, quashing clause (4) of Ext.P13 scheme, and repelling the challenge against Ext.P12 notification and the amendment notified thereunder. Writ Appeals : 19. The appeals are filed impugning the common judgment dated 15.3.2018 of the learned single judge in a batch of writ petitions that were filed challenging the orders passed by the RTA's rejecting the requests made by various private stage carriage operators, for a variation in their permits. The learned single judge set aside the rejection orders of the RTA's concerned and directed them to consider the requests of the writ petitioners for variation or extension of permits. In case there was no variation or extension as prayed for on the notified routes, the same were directed to be taken up and considered in accordance with the provisions of Section 80(3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was also made clear that the appellant KSRTC would also be heard before orders were passed by the RTA's concerned. 20. In the appeals filed by the KSRTC, the main ground of challenge against the judgment of the single Judge is that the directions in the judgment effectively confer more rights/privileges on the private stage carriage operators than what has been saved to them through clause (4) of the modified Scheme. 20. In the appeals filed by the KSRTC, the main ground of challenge against the judgment of the single Judge is that the directions in the judgment effectively confer more rights/privileges on the private stage carriage operators than what has been saved to them through clause (4) of the modified Scheme. Inasmuch as we have, in this judgment, quashed clause (4) of the modified Scheme, the said ground taken in the appeals cannot survive for maintaining the said appeals. Accordingly, we dismiss the Writ Appeals preferred by the KSRTC.