( 1 ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 3794 of 1985 also. Both these writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner M/s. Punjab Sikh Regular Motor Service, Bilaspur.

( 2 ) SHORN of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are that Misc. Petition No. 3782 of 1985 pertains to the grant of a permit on Bilaspur-Ramanujganj route, whereas Misc. Petition, No. 3794 of 1985 pertains to Ambikapur-Bilaspur route. The Regional Transport Officer, Bilaspur, invited applications for grant of permits on 16th February, 1979. The petitioner along with others applied for the grant of permit on both these routes and his case is that this application was made within time. These applications, however, remained pending for long and ultimately it was on 30th September, 1983 and 29th June, 1984 that applications for the two routes were published in the official gazette. On 30th September, 1983 itself Scheme No. 89 was published under Section 68c of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). This scheme is about routes and not about any area and the routes inter alia cover by the scheme were Bilaspur-Madai and Tara Ambikapur. These routes which have been included in the scheme constitute part of the routes in respect whereof applications were made by the petitioner for grant of permit. The R. T. A. granted permit to the petitioner on each of these two routes on the basis of the applications referred to above. M/s. Surguja Transport, Ambikapur (respondent No. 3 in M. P. No. 3782 of 1985) had filedan objection before the R. T. A. against the application of the petitioner for grant of permit on the Bilaspur-Ramanujganj route. In regard to Ambikapur-Bilaspur route, which is the subject-matter of M. P. 3794 of 1985. M/s. Janta Transport Co-operative Society (respondent No. 4 in that petition) was the applicant and the petitioner was a co-applicant. M/s. Surguja Transport, Ambikapur, who is respondent No. 5 in M. P. No. 3794 of 1985, had filed an objection against the grant of permit to the Janta Transport Co-operative Society whereas Khalsa Bus Service, Bilaspur (respondent No. 6 in M. P. No. 3794 of 1985) had filed an objection against the grant of permit to the petitioner who was co-applicant. Aggrieved by the order of grant of permits to the petitioner on Bilaspur-Ramanujganj route, M/s. Surguja Transport, Ambikapur preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior (respondent No. 2 ). It also filed an appeal against the grant of permit to the petitioner on the Ambikapur-Bilaspur route. An appeal was preferred by M/s. Janta Transport Co-operative Society also who too was an applicant for the grant of permit on the said route. An appeal was preferred by Khalsa Bus Service, Bilaspur, also who was an objector to the grant of permit to the petitioner. The appeals challenging the grant of permits to the petitioner on the two routes aforesaid were allowed and the grant made in favour of the petitioner was quashed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.

( 3 ) BEFORE dealing with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, we find it necessary to point out that on the facts of the instant case which are not disputed, namely, that Scheme No. 89 was published under Section 68c of the Act on 30th September, 1983 and that the said scheme is still pending, the approved scheme not having yet been published, and in view of the plain language of Sub-Section (1d) of Section 68f of the Act, the two permits granted to the petitioner on 3rd January, 1985 and 18th April, 1985 could not have been granted. The grant of permits to the petitioner is apparently, therefore, void. In this connection it may be noted that in Mohd. Ashfaq v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P. , AIR 1976 SC 2161 it was held :"it will, therefore, be seen that where a scheme is published under S. 68-C, no permit in respect of a route specified in the scheme can be