2 applied for grant of a temporary permit under Section 62 1 c of the Act.
On 1.9.1975 an inter State agreement between the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh had been entered into in respect of the Bangalore in Karnataka Punganoor in Andhra Pradesh route which companytemplated the running of one bus in the minimum and two at the most on the route.
Overruling the objection and relying upon the provision of Section 68 FF of the Act the Transport Authority granted the temporary permit asked for.
Later the State Transport Undertaking made an application for grant of a similar temporary permit to which objection was raised by the Respondent No.
It was modified from time to time but the scheme as last modified in January 1980 was in force when the dispute number under companysideration arose.
A learned single Judge of the High Court, after hearing the parties allowed the two writ petitions, set aside the order granting the permit in favour of the State Transport Undertaking, appellant herein, and directed that a temporary permit be granted to the respondent No.
The rejection of the application of the respondent and the grant of the permit to the appellant became the subject matter of the two writ petitions before the High Court.
Around December 1980 Respondent No.
The State Transport Authority rejected the application by saying that as a part of the route over which the permit was asked for companyered a route under the Kolar Pocket Scheme a temporary permit on that route companyld number be granted.
The short facts which led to filing of the two writ petitions in the High Court are these The State Government of Karnataka framed a scheme under Chapter IV A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, companyering 89 intra State routes companymonly known as Kolar Pocket Scheme.
J. Ranganath Misra, J. Both these appeals by special leave arc against a companymon order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court upholding the judgment of a learned single Judge in two writ petitions.
