Judgment 1. All these twelve cases have been heard together as identical questions of law and facts are involved in them. They are, therefore being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioners in these cases applied for renewal of their stage carriage permits for different routes. Following the procedure for grant of permits, the renewal applications were published in the Bihar Gazette on the 19th June, 1968. Objections were invited. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter called the Corporation, filed objections on the ground that there were proposed schemes, which were about to be approved, and the schemes, when approved will cover entirely in some cases and partially in others. the routes for which the renewal of the permits had been applied. It appears from the order of the Regional Transport Authority, North Bihar, which was the first authority in all these cases, that for sometime temporary permits were given to the petitioners awaiting the final approval and publication of the approved schemes in the official Gazette, as required under Sub-section (3) of Sec. 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called the Act. But finally, due to one reason or the other, when the publication in the Official Gazette of the schemes was not available to the Regional Transport Authority, it thought It proper to renew the permits applied to be renewed by the petitioners, and by its resolution dated 18-12-1968, a copy of which is Annexure 1 in all the applications, it granted the renewal. The Corporation went up in appeal. By the time the appeals were heard by the Appeal Board, the scheme seems to have been approved and published in the Official Gazette. The Appeal Board has taken into consideration the schemes so published while passing its order dated the 29th September, 1969, a copy of which is Annexure 3 in all the applications, by which the orders of renewal of the petitioners permits have been set aside. The petitioners have come up to this Court for the quashing of the order of the Appeal Board 3. The petitioners have come up to this Court for the quashing of the order of the Appeal Board 3. It may be mentioned here that some title suits were filed in some Civil Courts in the State of Bihar, wherein orders of injunction were issued from time to time, due to which for a considerable time the schemes, even if they appear to have been approved long ago, could not be published in the Official Gazette under Sub-section (3) of Sec. 68D of the Act. Hence they could not become final and could not be called the approved schemes. The routes to which they related could not be called notified routes within the meaning of the said provision of law. After the injunction orders were vacated the schemes were published in the Official Gazette on the 28th May. 1969. 4. Before the Appeal Board, is was argued on behalf of the Corporation that the Regional Transport Authority while considering the applications for stage carriage permits, even for their renewal, ought to have taken into consideration the adequacy of other passenger transport services likely to operate in near future, as required by Clause (c) of Sec. 47 of the Act. According to the case of the Corporation, after cominfi into force of the approved schemes, it was going to operate the buses and therefore, renewal of the permits ought to have been refused. The Chairman of the Bihar State Transport Appellate Authority in his order (Annexure 3) seems to have accepted the contention partially when it said that the Regional Transport Authority could not ignore the fact that the schemes were likely to operate, particularly when the Corporation pointed out to the said Authority that the schemes had been approved by the Government and their publication was delaved because of some injunction orders issued by the Court. But thereafter, as we read the order of the chairman, he did not think it fit and proper to give effect to Clause (c), even assuming that he could have given effect to Clause (c) in a case of this nature and refused the renewal of the permits of the petitioners. What he did was that he set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority in granting the renewal in all the cases, so far as the notified portions of the routes were concerned. What he did was that he set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority in granting the renewal in all the cases, so far as the notified portions of the routes were concerned. In other words, the Appeal Board exercised its power under Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Sec. 68F of the Act. But in the approved schemes, there was a very important condition, which was a part of the schemes, in favour of the private operators, and which was to the following effect: "The private operators shall ply their services till the present validity of their existing stage carriage permits and no stage carriage services of private operators shall ply after expiry of the present term of their permits." 5. We do not wish to say either way as to whether grant of permits or renewal of permits can be refused on the ground of Clause (c) of Sec. 47 of the Act, because of an impending scheme. In these cases, however, it was not so done by the Regional Transport Authority nor was it so done by the Appeal Board. While giving effect to the approved schemes after their publication in the Official Gazette, which effect, we are inclined to think, could be given even at the appellate stage, and even when the publication of the schemes in the Official Gazette was after the passing of the orders by the -Regional Transport Authority, the Appeal Board, in our opinion ought to have given full effect to these schemes, if so done, under the clause of the schemes, which we have extracted above, the permits which were renewed by the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated the 18th December. 1968. must be deemed to be "existing stage carriage permits" within the meaning of the said clause at the time the Appeal Board was giving effect to the schemes. That being so in our opinion, the Appeal Board was not justified and committed an error of law in settina aside the order or modifying the orders of the Regional Transport Authority. must be deemed to be "existing stage carriage permits" within the meaning of the said clause at the time the Appeal Board was giving effect to the schemes. That being so in our opinion, the Appeal Board was not justified and committed an error of law in settina aside the order or modifying the orders of the Regional Transport Authority. Only about eight or nine months still remain before the permits renewed in pursuance of the orders of the Regional Transport Authority will expire and in such a situation, we do not feel persuaded to accept the argument put forward on behalf of the Corporation that these writ applications should fail as the petitioners have not availed of the alternative remedy of going to the revisional authority under Sec. 64A of the Act or the appeals concerned should be remitted back to the Appeal Board for their re-hearing In our opinion, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, for the reasons stated above, the order of the Appeal Board is fit to be Quashed and must be quashed by grant of writs of certiorari The result of the quashing of the order will be that the renewal of the permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority to the various petitioners by their order dated 18-12-1968 for the period for which the renewal has been granted shall be valid 6. We accordingly, allow these applications and quash the order dated 29-9-1969 of the Appeal Board in all the cases a copy of which is Annexure 3 in all these cases But there shall be no order as to costs in any of the cases