DILSUKH RAM Joint Secretary to Government G.O.Ms. No. 179 dated 28-6-1990 which is also relevant for the purpose of this case reads thus : "Approved scheme of Road Transport Services published by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation relating to the routes in West Godavari district. G.O. Ms. No. 179, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Tr. IV), 28th June, 1990. Whereas the Government having considered the scheme prepared and published by the State Transport undertaking at pages 29-59 of Part II, Extraordinary issue of the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 12-5-1989 and objections made through petitions and personally have decided to approve the scheme with certain modifications under Section 102(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. THE SCHEME

1. Route (Starting point and terminus with important intermediate stations and route length) Details furnished in Annexure.

2. Area (Name of routes with starting points and terminus and intermediate stations and route length) -do-

3. Whether town service or mofussil service or both. Mofussil service/State carriage.

4. Maximum and minimum number of vehicles proposed to be operated on each route by the State Transport Undertaking to the exclusion, complete or partial or otherwise of other persons. No. of buses details of which are furnished in the annexure will be operated to the complete exclusion of all other persons holding stage carriage permits on the proposed route and such other persons holding stage carriage permits on the routes overlapping completely or partially on the proposed route except to the extent specified in the note hereunder. (a) Maximum Number Details furnished in annexure. (b) Minimum number -do- (c) Type Saloon (d) Capacity 35-60 Seating capacity.

5. Maximum and minimum number of trips proposed to be performed on each route by the State Transport Undertaking to the exclusion, complete or partial or otherwise of other persons No. of round trips details of which are furnished in the annexure will be operated to the complete exclusion of all other persons holding stage carriage permits on the routes overlapping completely or partially on the proposed route except to the extent specified in the note hereunder. (a) Maximum No. Details furnished in annexure. (b) Minimum No. -do-

6. No. of vehicles intended to be kept in reserve to maintain the services and to provide for special occasions. 10% of the total fleet required for operation of scheduled services in the district will be kept in reserved.

7. The arrangements proposed for the housing, maintenance and repairs of the vehicles The existing and proposed depots of APSR-TC will provide for housing, maintenance and repairs of the vehicles.

8. The arrangements proposed for the comfort and convenience of the passengers Bus stations at important traffic points and wayside shelters are proposed to be constructed. In addition, drinking water facilities will be provided at important places during summer.

9. The arrangements proposed for the stands and halts on the route at which copies of the time-tables of the services are proposed to be exhibited. At important traffic points where bus stations are proposed to be constructed, timetable boards will be exhibited. 10. Whether it is proposed to permit the carriage of goods in addition to the passengers Newspaper parcels, unaccompanied luggage and postal mail bags will be permitted in addition to the passengers and their personal luggage. Note : This scheme shall not affect :--

1. The State Transport Undertakings.

2. The existing town services operating on the notified routes.

3. The holders of stage carriage permits for a distance not exceeding 5 Kms. on the notified route.

4. The existing services operating on the Inter-state routes incorporated in the concluded Inter-state agreement u/s 63 (3-B) of M. V. Act, 1939; and

5. The services operated by Devasthanams. LAL ROSEM Joint Secretary to Government" (contd. on page 341) the proposals except a temporary permit during the pendency of the proposal and such temporary permit is to remain valid only for a period of one year from the date of its issue.

12. Section 100 (S. 68-D of Act, 1939) provides for objection to the proposal made under S. 99. Section 102 (Corresponding to S. 68-E of the Old Act) which provides for cancellation or modification of scheme reads thus : "(1) The State Government may, at anytime, if it considers necessary, in the public interest so to do, modify any approved scheme after giving -

(i) the State transport Undertaking; and

(ii) any other person who, in the opinion of the State Government is likely to be affected by the proposed modification; an opportunity of being heard in respect of the proposed modification. (2) The State Government shall publish any modification proposed under sub-sec. (1) in the Official Gazette and in one of the newspapers in the regional language circulating in the area in which it is proposed to be covered by such modification, together with the date, not being less than thirty days from such publication in the official Gazette, and the time and place at which any representation received in this behalf will be heard by the State Government."

13. Section 104 which corresponds to s. 68-ff of the old act provides for restriction on grant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route in the following terms : "104. Restriction on grant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route - Where a scheme has been published under sub-sec. (3) of S. 100 in respect of any notified route, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Authority, as the case may be, shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. Provided that where no application for a permit has been made by the State Transport Undertaking in respect of any notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, may grant temporary permit to any person in respect of such notified area or notified route subject to the condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State transport undertaking in respect of the area or route."

14. There is no dispute that such a scheme as approved by State under the Act is a law and no permit can be granted to any person in contravention thereof. The question which arises for consideration in these applications is as to whether the prohibition having been imposed in the scheme approved by the Government to the exclusion, complete or partial or otherwise of other persons, with regard to stage carriage mofussil service, the same has any application to the town service.

15. Rule 258 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which provides for fixation of stages for carriages reads as under : "258. Fixation of stages for carriages : (1) In the case of stage carriages, the Regional Transport Authority shall, after consultation with such other authority as it may deem desirable, fix stage on all bus routes except town service. The maximum distance of each stage shall not ordinarily exceed 6.4 Kilometers. When stages are so fixed, fares shall be collected according to stage. Explanation :- When a passenger gets into or gets down from a stage carriage at a place lying in between two stages, he shall pay the fare from the stage proceeding the place where he gets into the bus to the stage succeeding the place where he gets down. (1) The Regional Transport Authority shall, subject to the following restrictions, determine which are town service routes :

(i) at least terminus of every town service shall lie within the limits of a municipality or any build up place notified in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette as town for this purpose by the Regional Transport Authority concerned, with the prior concurrence of the State Transport Authority.

(ii) No route of town service shall extend more than 8 kilometers beyond the limits of the municipality or town from which it starts, provided that this restriction shall not apply to any town service route, which were in existence on the date of coming of these rules into force or in respect of those routes for which specific permission of the Transport Commissioner is obtained.

(iii) No route shall be determined as both town and (mafussil) service routes.

16. rule 298 of the rules provides that every scheme for road transport service formulated by the State Government under S. 99 shall be published by the State Government in Form STU. Rule 299 provides that any scheme for road transport service as approved or modified by the State Government shall be notified in the manner specified in Form STU-AS. It may be noted here that the schemes approved and notified by the State Government were in the said forms.

17. As already noticed above, S. 99(1) provides for preparation and publication of proposals regarding road transport service of a State transport undertaking where in the opinion of the State Government it is necessary in the public interest that road transport service in general or any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run and operated exclusively by the State road transport undertaking. The exclusion of other persons to run vehicles in relation to such notified area or route or portion thereof contained in the scheme may either be complete or partial.

18. The schedule appended to the aforementioned G.O. Ms. No. 782/G.O. Ms. No. 179 is part of the scheme. In the said schedule the route area, the nature of service, number of vehicles proposed to be operated on the route, number of trips to be performed and other connected matters are mentioned.

19. It is not in dispute that in terms of the rules framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh two different services, namely, Town Service and Mofussil service have been specified. The said two services are absolutely different and distinct.

20. There is a great deal of difference between a town service and a mofussil service. A mofussil service in its very scheme is a long distance one which may have number of stage on the route; it may also have different fare structures and the stages prescribed therefor are also different, whereas town service normally operates in a particular limited route. Not only that the fare structures of the two services are different. The buses that are plied on the two services are differently built so as to satisfy the need of the different types of commuters in the respective areas. We may also note that whereas in a town service, the number of stoppages would be more and the fare structure would be higher and the types of buses would also be different, in long distance buses covering mofussil service stoppages would be less and the buses will be used for different purposes.

21. Clause(3) of the schedule in G.O. Ms. No. 179 is a part of Form STU issued in terms of rule 298 of the rules and thus is statutory in nature. The STU form has been defined under Rule 2(d) of the rules to mean a Form prescribed under the Act or Central Rules or appended to the State Rules.

22. As noticed hereinbefore, against Clause No. 3 of the scheme published in G.O.Ms. No.179/G.O.Ms. No. 782 viz. "Whether town service or mofussil service or both" it was clearly notified that it was only for "mofussil service." Had the intention of the State Government been to bring within the purview of the said notification both for mofussil service and town service in regard to the service operated by the Corporation in the area or route notified under the scheme, it could have stated so in unmistakable terms. At this stage, we may also note that Clause (iii) of Explanation under Rule 258 clearly put a bar that no route shall be determined as both town and mofussil service routes. The prohibition imposed in Clause No. 4 of the scheme notified cannot be read in isolation but must be read conjointly with Clause No. 3 therefor read with Explanation No. (iii) under Rule 258 (1).

23. The submission of Mr. Haranath learned standing counsel for the Corporation to the effect that the exclusion contained in Clause No. 4 of the scheme is only to the extent specified in the note appended thereunder which includes the existing town service operating on the notified routes and thus all others would be necessarily prohibited cannot be accepted.

24. There cannot be any dispute whatsoever that having regard to the various decisions of the Apex Court in T.V. Nataraj v. State of Karnataka (1994) 2 SCC 32 : (1994 AIR SCW 1442). Pandiyan Road Ways Corporation Ltd. v. Thiru M.A. Egappan, AIR 1987 SC 958, C. Kasturi v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, AIR 1996 SC 1664, APSRTC v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1998 SC 2621, as also the decisions of this Court in APSRTC v. Secretary To Government (1999) 6 Andh LT 558, in 1999 (2) ALD 622 and 1999 (6) ALT 509 (Sic) the authorization to ply a vehicle must be express and implied authorization is not countenanced. But the question which arises for consideration would be as to whether in a situation of this nature where a ban has been imposed only expressly in relation to mofussil service, whether the exclusion clause contained in Clause No. 4 of the schedule in G.O.Ms. No. 179 read with Note (2) thereunder can be put in service so as to bring within its fold also town service. The answer to the same must mecessarily be in the negative.

25. Having regard to the purpost and object of the Act, 1988, permits are to be liberally granted. Chapter VI of the Act contains a special provision. There cannot also be any doubt whatsoever in regard to the principles adumbrated by the Apex Court in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India (AIR 1992 SC 443) in the matter of grant of permits in view of the liberalization policy of the Government which was intended to encourage healthy competition and eliminate corruption. Although the said decision has no application in relation to a scheme prepared under Chapter VI of the Act which provides for special provision relating to State Transport Undertaking but it is also beyond any cavil of doubt that such exclusionary clause must be strictly interpreted.

26. It is true that the definition of permit as contained in S. 2(31) of the Act is a wide one. We are also not oblivious of the specific bar imposed by S. 104 of the Act prohibiting grant of any permit on the notified route which is part of the scheme.

27. The words any permit cannot embrace within its fold both mofussil permit and town permit unless the same is specifically provided for.

28. A scheme, although has to be read in the context of S. 104 of the Act, but the same cannot be given a wider application than intended to by the maker thereof. In Achyut v. Regional Transport Officer, AIR 1988 SC 2047 the Apex Court held that despite publication of a scheme under S. 68-C of the 1939 Act proposing to nationalise contract carriage service would not be an impediment for grant of permits under S. 63(6) thereof in respect of the routes covered by the scheme. The Apex Court in this connection approved the decision of the Karnataka High Court in K.N. Shreekanthaiah v. Dy. Transport Commr., Bangalore (1979) 2 Kant LJ 292 : AIR 1979 NOC 134 as also the decision of this Court in Mohd. Basha v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, AIR 1975 Andh Pra 242. Having regard to the different kinds of permits contemplated under the Act and a special permit under S. 63(6) can be granted we find no reason as to why town permits cannot be granted when the scheme of nationalisation covers only mofussil routes.

29. The note appended to a scheme framed under the statute must be construed having regard to the fact that it is a purposive enactment. It is a well settled principle of law that where the law is not clear, recourse must be taken to purposive interpretation. In Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. (1987)1 SCC 424 : (AIR 1987 SC 1023) it was held (at p. 1042 of AIR) : "Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different then when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place.

30. In Anantha Kumar v. State of West Bengal (1999)4 Serv LR 661 : (1999 Lab IC 2544) a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has noticed the authorities as regards purposive construction. In Francis Bennion Statutory Interpretation, Second edition, as regards the rule of purposive construction, it has been stated at S. 304 as under : "A purposive construction of an enactment is one which gives effect to the legislative purpose by - (a) following the literal meaning of the enactment where that meaning is in accordance with the legislative purpose (in the Code called a purposive and literal construction), (b) applying a strained meaning where the literal meaning is not in accordance with the legislative purpose (in the Code called a purposive and strained construction)."

31. The meaning of "note" as per P. Ramanatha Aiyars Law Lexicon, 1997 Edition is a brief statement of particulars of some fact, a passage or explanation. Explanation has various functions. In S. Sundaram v. R. Pattabhiraman, AIR 1985 SC 582 at para 52 it has been held : "Thus, from a conspectus of the authorities referred to above, it is manifest that the object of an Explanation to a statutory provision is - (a) to explain the meaning and intendment of the Act itself (b) Where there is any obscurity or vagueness in the main enactment, to clarify the same so as to make it consistent with the dominant object which it seems to subserve, (c) to provide an additional support to the dominant object of the Act in order to make it meaningful and purposeful, (d) an Explanation cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment or any part thereof but where some gap is left which is relevant for the purpose of the Explanation, in order to suppress the mischief and advance the object of the Act it can help or assist the Court in interpreting the true purport and intendment, of the enactment, and (e) it cannot, however, take away a statutory right with which any person under a statute has been clothed or set at naught the working of an Act by becoming an hindrance in the interpretation of the same."

32. It is, therefore, evident that the note (2) appended to G.O. Ms. No. 179 dated 28-6-1990 that the scheme shall not affect the existing town services operating on the notified routes is merely clarificatory in nature which was appended so as to obviate the difficulties that may be faced by the existing town service operating on the notified routes but the same cannot by itself take away the statutory right with which any person under a statute has been clothed nor it can interefere with or change the enactment or any part of the statute. So read and having regard to the object and purport of the issuance of the notification, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajappa Kawati v. G. Hanumantha Rao (1996 AIHC 3461) lays down the correct proposition of law and the view taken by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 56 of 1992 dated 14-10-1992 does not reflect the correct interpretation of the provisions.

33. For the reasons aforementioned, the Writ Petitions filed by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation are dismissed and W.P. No. 2157 of 1995 is allowed. No order as to costs. Order accordingly.