JUDGMENT

These are five Civil Appeals by Special Leave against identical orders of a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court.

2. In relation to Civil Appeal No. 937 of 1980 the Regional Transport Authority, out of two permits, granted one permit on the route Salem to Poolambadi to the appellant State Transport Undertaking and the other to the first respondent, Safe Service Ltd. In Civil Appeal No. 938 of 1980 there was only one permit for the route Salem to Pallipatti which was granted to the State Transport Undertaking. In other words, it was denied to the second respondent, R.P. David. In Civil Appeal No. 939 of 1980, on the route Salem to Poolambadi, out of two permits, one permit was granted to the State Transport Undertaking and the other to another private operator, Suganeswara Motor Service denying the permit to R. P. David-respondent herein. In Civil Appeal No. 940 of 1980, on the route Salem to Erode, the objection of the State Transport Undertaking on the renewal sought by Parsuraman Pillai-respondent was sustained and the permit was granted to the State Transport Undertaking, leaving the private operator aggrieved. In Civil A peal No.941 of 1980, on the route Salem to Tiruchangode, the renewal application of K. Ramaswamy respondent operator was declined on objection by the State Transport Undertaking, who in turn, on its application, was granted the permit leaving the private operator K. Ramaswamy respondent aggrieved. All the aggrieved parties preferred appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal identically in all these cases took the view that since a draft scheme under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 had been published by the State Government and was under consideration at the time when the matter was pending in appeal, sub-section (I-D) of Section 68-F of the Act stood in the way for any relief being granted to the private operators and thus dismissed the appeals. That provision forbids permits being granted or renewed during the period intervening between the date of publication of any draft scheme under Section 68-C of the Act, and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme, in favour of any person, or for any class of road transport service, in relation to an area, or route, or portion thereof, covered by such scheme. However, the proviso thereto permits that where the period of operation of a permit in relation to any area, route or portion thereof specified in the scheme published under Section 68-C expires after such publication, such permit may be renewed for a limited period, but the permit so renewed shall cease to be effective on the publication of the scheme under sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act.

3. As is evident, the Appellate Authority applied sub-section (1 -D) of Section 68F to all the five cases and not the proviso. The High Court on revision preferred by the private operators upset the orders of the Appellate Authority directing the Regional Transport Authority to reconsider the matter on merit. While doing so it relied on a judgment of the Madras High Court in K. A. Natarajan v. M. Naina Mohammed, AIR 1978 Madras 280 to the effect that appeal before the Appellate Authority was maintainable even though a draft scheme within the terms of Section 68C of the Act had appeared on the scene. The State Transport Undertaking being aggrieved is before us by Special Leave.

4. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides. So far as Civil Appeals Nos. 937-939/1980 are concerned, these are cases of non-grant of permits to the aggrieved private operators. To their cases sub-section (I -D) of Section 68F of the Act was clearly attracted. No permit could be granted on their asking in the presence of the draft scheme. And when none could be granted the exercise of consideration of the claim of the aggrieved private operators on merit, was itself a futility. When the law forbade the grant of a permit in the aforesaid duration, merits of grant stood