Judgment

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:- Both these appeals by special leave are against a common order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court upholding the judgment of a learned single Judge in two writ petitions.

2. 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, covering 89 intra-State routes commonly known as Kolar Pocket Scheme. It was modified from time to time but the scheme as last modified in January 1980 was in force when the dispute now under consideration arose. 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) - Punganur (in Andhra Pradesh) route which contemplated the running of one bus in the minimum and two at the most on the route. Around December 1980 Respondent No. 2 applied for grant of a temporary permit under S. 62(1)(c) of the Act. The State Transport Authority rejected the application by saying that as a part of the route over which the permit was asked for covered a route under the Kolar Pocket Scheme a temporary permit on that route could not be granted. Later the State Transport Undertaking made an application for grant of a similar temporary permit to which objection was raised by the Respondent No. 2. Overruling the objection and relying upon the provision of S. 68-FF of the Act the Transport Authority granted the temporary permit asked for. 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.

3. 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. 2 until a permanent permit was granted for the route or for a four months period whichever is later. The Division Bench having upheld the order of the learned single Judge these appeals have been carried after obtaining special leave.

4. The Kolar Pocket Scheme is in regard to the intra-State routes. There is no dispute that a part of the inter-State route is covered by the notified routes under the Scheme. Appellants counsel has placed reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment in Adarsh Travels Bus Service v. State of U.P., (1985) 4 SCC 557 : (AIR 1986 SC 319), in support of his contention that where the route covered by the scheme overlaps any route, no permit to private operators could be granted. Section 68-FF of the Act provides :

"Where a scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of Section 68-D in respect of any notified area or notified route the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme :

xxxxxxxxxxxx

In view of the admitted position that the intra-State route covered under the Scheme and the inter-State route in question overlap for, a major portion, the principle indicated in S. 68-FF as accepted by the Constitution Bench judgment would bar the grant of a permit unless it is in accordance with law and the provisions of the Scheme. We find from the Scheme that it saves the existing permits on the inter-State route subject to corridor restrictions. Admittedly the temporary permit obtained by the Respondent No. 2 was not an existing permit when the revised scheme came into force in 1980. Therefore, it would not be saved by the provision in the scheme and the grant of a temporary permit would not be in accordance with the statutory requirements of S. 68-FF. The High Court went wrong in directing grant of a temporary permit to the respondent but the temporary permit that was granted by the High Court has long lapsed. We are told that as no permanen