( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It has been referred to this Full Bench in view of conflict of authorities in this Court on the interpretation of Section 68-F (1-D) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

( 2 ) DAMODARDAS Sitaldas, who is the petitioner in this petition, holds a stage carriage permit for the route Hanumana-Telgawan. This route is an interstatal route as Hanumana is in Madhya Pradesh and Telgawan in Uttar Pradesh. By a notice dated 18th February 1976, the Regional Transport Authority has invited applications for grant of a return trip permit for the route Bidhauli-Sidhi via sonbarsa-Amaliya-Bahari-Kubari. Whole of this route lies in Madhya Pradesh, but a part of it, which lies between Amaliya and Bahari, overlaps the interstatal route Hanumana-Telgawan. The Madhya Pradesh State Transport Corporation, which is a State Transport Undertaking, published Scheme No. 39 in December 1965 under Section 68-C. This Scheme, which is still awaiting approval, modification or rejection, relates to certain interestatal routes including the route Hanumana-Telgawan. The Scheme proposes that these routes will be operated by the Corporation. The petitioner's contention is that in view of this scheme and section 68-F (1-D) of the Act, the Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to grant a permit for any part of the route Hanumana-Telgawan or for any route overlapping any part of this route even if such part or the route for which permit is applied for lies wholly in Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner further contends that if the Regional Transport Authority cannot grant a permit, it logically follows that it cannot also invite applications for such a permit. On these grounds, the petitioner prays for quashing of the notice inviting applications for permit for the route Bidhauli-Sidhi which, as earlier stated, partly overlaps the route Hanumana-Telgawan. The petition is opposed by the intervener, Swami Prasad Soni, who in pursuance of the notice has applied for a permit on the route Bidhauli-Sidhi,

( 3 ) THE relevant sections of the Act are as follows:

"68-C, Where any State Transport undertaking is of opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run and operated by the State Transport undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise, the State Transport undertaking may prepare a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered, and such other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed, and shall cause every such scheme to be published in the official Gazette and also in such other manner as the State Government may direct. "

"68-D. (1) On the publication of any scheme in the Official Gazette and is not less than one newspaper in regional language circulating in the area or route which is proposed to be covered by such scheme;-

(i) any person already providing transport facilities by any means along or near the area or route proposed to be covered by the scheme;

(ii) any association representing persons interested in the provision of road transport facilities recognised in this behalf by the State Government;

(iii) any local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the area route proposed to be covered by the scheme lies. may, within thirty days from the date of its publication in the official Gazette, file objections to it before the State government.

(2) The State Government may, after considering the objections and after giving an opportunity to the objector or his representatives and the representatives of the State Transport Undertaking to be heard in the matter, if they so desire, approve