SINGH, J. :- By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation calls into question an order of the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa passed on 17th June, 1968 by which one stage carriage permit was granted to each of the respondents, M/s. Ramgopal Satyanarayan and M/s. Viswanath Prasad Ramgopal for the route Rewa to Pendra via Shahdol, Burhar and Amarkantak.

2. Rewa-Shahdol is a notified route in the scheme No. 50 made under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. This route under the scheme is reserved for exclusive operation of the Corporation. The route Rewa-Pendra covers the entire route Rewa-Shahdol and goes beyond upto Pendra. In the permits, that were granted to the respondents, a condition has been imposed that the operators "will not set down passengers from Rewa and places between Rewa and Shahdol and at Shahdol and similarly on the return journey between Shahdol and Rewa they will not pick up passengers at Shahdol or thereafter." The contention raised in this petition by the Corporation is that, as Rewa Shahdol is a route reserved for exclusive operation of the Corporation, no permit covering this route or any portion of it with whatever condition could be granted by the Regional Transport Authority. In answer, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in whose favour the permits were granted, contended that on a proper construction of the scheme No. 50, it would appear that Rewa Shahdol was not a route of exclusive operation and therefore, there was no bar for granting any permit on this route.

3. To appreciate the rival contention, we must notice the provisions of the scheme No. 50. The scheme as proposed, mentioned in Clause (2) the routes or areas in respect of which the scheme was proposed. Clause (5) of the scheme stated that the State Transport Undertaking will exclusively provide all road transport services on Rewa Shahdol route. Clause (7) of the scheme was divided into three parts mentioning the permits that were to be cancelled, curtailed or made ineffective by virtue of the scheme. This scheme was considered by the Special Secretary on behalf of the State Government and was approved with certain modifications by his order passed on 9th February, 1967. The Special Secretary found that on permit for a route partly overlapping the route Rewa Shahdol was not mentioned in Clause (7) of the proposed scheme either for cancellation, curtailment or for being made ineffective. The Special Secretary, with a view to avoid discrimination of other permit-holders whose permits were also for such routes, which only partly overlapped the route Rewa Shahdol, removed all such permits from Clause (7). The final scheme as modified and approved by the Special Secretary was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated 24th February, 1967. In the approved scheme, Clause (5) of the scheme which mentioned Rewa Shahdol as a route reserved for exclusive operation of the Corporation was retained. This approved scheme was challenged in Allied Transport Co. v. State of M. P., M. P. No. 261 of 1967 D/-30-7-1968 (MP).

It was found that some other permits, which were also for routes which only partly covered by the route of exclusive operation were mentioned in the list of permits to be cancelled and therefore, to bring uniformity, these permits were also allowed to stand. The effect of the modification by the Special Secretary and the order of this Court in this writ petition was that permits for the routes, which were only partly covered by the route of exclusive operation, were allowed to continue. It is to be noticed that in Baluram v. State of M. P., 1967 MPLJ 539 : (AIR 1967 Madh Pra 130) it was held by this Court that a permit not mentioned in the proposed scheme for cancellation or modification could not be included for cancellation or modification in the final scheme. It was because of this ruling, that the Special Secretary as also this Cou