Shiv Dayal, C. J.-1. The following question has been referred to this Bench :-

"Whether the grant of a temporary permit under sub-section (1-A) and (1-C) of section 68F of the Act is subject to the provisions of section 62 of the Act, and as such cannot be granted for a period exceeding 4 months".

2. The Division Bench, which referred this question was confronted with two conflicting decisions of this Court. In Dhanna Singh Hemraj V. Regional Transport Authority Gwalior AIR 1975 MP 75 = 1974 MPLJ 922. G.P. Singh and B.R. Dube, JJ. reached the following conclusion :-

"For all these reasons, we are of opinion that a temporary permit referred to in sub-sections (1-A) and (1-C) of section 68 F means a temporary permit for a limited period not exceeding four months at any one time as in the nature of a temporary permit under section 62."

3. A contrary view was taken in Misc. Petition No. 1177 of 1974. The M.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. The Secretary, R.T.A. Rewa and Ors; where a Division Bench, consisting of Tare, C J. and Malik, J. made the following observations:-

"But prima facie, we feel that such a temporary permit would not be covered by period of four months provided by S.62 (1) of the Act, Our reasons for coming to this conclusion is that sub-section (1-A) and sub-section (1C) of S.68 F of the Act would be operative independently of S.62 of the Act and therefore, the period of a temporary permit contemplated by sub-sections (1-A) or (1-C) of section 68 F of the Act cannot be limited to four months."

4. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator holding one permit on route Bhander-Gwalior via Datia Dabra for one return trip. The Regional Transport Authority by his order dated September 29, 1975, held that until finalisation of Scheme No. 38 (published by the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation), it was essential to make arrangement. Since grant of temporary permit for four months every now and then causes inconvenience, the Regional Transport Authority decided to grant permit for three years or till finalisation of the proposed Scheme, whichever is earlier. Having decided that principle the Regional Transport Authority granted a temporary permit to Guruprasad Arora (respondent 3). The temporary permit issued was for the route Chhoti Badauni-Gwalior via Datia, Dabra for the return trip daily for a period of three years or till finalisation of Scheme No. 38. The petitioner challenged the temporary permit inter alia on the ground that it could not be granted for more than four months.

5. When nationalisation of transport services became a policy, new Chapter IV-A was introduced in the Motor Vehicles Act, by virtue of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 1956, (No. 100 of 1956). The main object and purpose of this Chapter is to grant monopoly permits to State Transport Undertakings and also cover other ancillary matters. The scheme or this Chapter shows that it wide-opens the road for the State Transport Undertaking to be the 'monarch of all I survey". The provisions contained in this Chapter confer a monopoly on the S.T.U. to the partial or complete exclusion of other intending operators, be they individuals operating transport services or private transport undertakings all of which are treated as one class in contradistinction to the S.T.U. They enable the latter to exclude the former and to acquire monopoly, partial or complete in carrying on transport business in notified areas or on notified routes.

6. Section 68-C authorises the S.T.U. to prepare and publish a scheme of road-transport service. For initiating a Scheme, two things are required: (i) the nature of the service proposed to be rendered, and (ii) the area or route proposed to be covered. However, the section is an enabling one and there is nothing in it, which makes it compulsory or mandatory, for the S.T.U. to prepare a Scheme. The grant of a monopoly disqualifies a private operator for plying (i) on the same route as notified as a route; or (ii) between an