Judgment :- 1. We see little substance in this appeal. 2. R.8 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles (State Transport Undertakings) Rules made under S.68 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act read thus at the relevant time: "8. In giving effect to the approved scheme, The Regional Transport Authority or Authorities concerned shall, before eliminating the existing services or cancelling any exi-sting permit or modifying the conditions of the existing permit so as to (i) render the permit ineffective beyond a specified date; (ii) reduce the number of vehicles authorised to be used under a permit; or (iii) curtail the area or route covered by the permit in so far as such permit relates to the notified route; give due notice to the persons likely to be affected in the manner prescribed in these rules." It seems to us that there are two ways of looking at the "due notice" prescribed by the rule. The first is that the notice is for the purpose of showing cause against the adverse action, in other words, that the notice contemplated is a show cause notice. The other is that "due notice" is a sort of quit notice giving the affected person reasonable time for preparation for and adjustment to the conse-quences of the adverse action, the action being actually taken only on the expiry of the period of notice. In favour of the second view it might perhaps be said that the order of elimination, cancellation or modification is I really made by the approved scheme and that what the rule says is that the Regional Transport Authority shall before eliminating an existing service or cancelling or modifying an existing permit give due notice to the persons likely to be affected, not that it shall give due notice before ordering the elimination or cancellation or modification. But it seems to be clear from the following extract from the decision of the Supreme Court in Nage-swaranv. State of Andh. Pra. AIR. 1959 SC. But it seems to be clear from the following extract from the decision of the Supreme Court in Nage-swaranv. State of Andh. Pra. AIR. 1959 SC. 1378 at 1383 where their Lordships construed the identically worded rub 11 of the corresponding Andhra rules, that what the rule really contemplates is a show cause notice: "There are two defects in the procedure followed by the Regional Transport Authority(1) while the rule enjoins on the authority to issue notice to the persons affected before making the relevant order, the Authority made the order and communicated the same to the persons affected; and (ii) while the rule requires due notice i., reasonable notice, to be given to the persons affected to enable them to make representations against the order proposed to be passed, the Regional Transport Authority gave them only a day for comply-ing with that order, which in the circumstances could not be considered to be due notice within the meaning of the rule." It might perhaps be said that while it is clear enough that the rule is viewed here-in as prescribing a show cause notice, the observation that the Regional Transport Authority gave the affected persons only a day for compliance seems to have in mind a quit notice. But, however the rule is viewed, we do not think that the appellant before us has any case. 3. The appellant is an operator on the Kottayam Ernakulam (via Vaikom) route which is one of the routes from which private operators are to be eliminated under the approved scheme, all existing permits being cancelled. The Regional Transport Authority, regarding R.8 as contemplating a show cause notice, issued to the appellant the notice, Ext. P1 dated 23 11968, asking him to file a written objection against the cancellation of his permit with-in seven days of the date of the receipt of the notice failing which, it said, it would be presumed that the appellant had nothing to say and the matter would accordingly be decided ex pane. This notice, it would appear, was received by the appellant only on 29 11968. Meanwhile, on 271 1968, the Regional Transport Authority had sent the appellant the notice, Ext. P 2, to the effect that the matter would be taken up for consideration at a meeting to be held on 2-2-1968. This notice, it would appear, was received by the appellant only on 29 11968. Meanwhile, on 271 1968, the Regional Transport Authority had sent the appellant the notice, Ext. P 2, to the effect that the matter would be taken up for consideration at a meeting to be held on 2-2-1968. On the appellant's own showing he appeared at that meeting and took the objection that he had not had the seven days' time for filing a writteri objection vouchsafed by the notice, Ext. P1. The matter was therefore not taken up on that day. Subsequently, on 21-2-1968 the Regional Transport Authority issued the notice, Ext. P3, to the appellant stating that the matter would be taken up for consideration at a meeting to be held on 27-2-1968. This notice was received by the appellant on 24-2-1968, and he appeared at the meeting on 27-2-1968 where, according to his own statement, he merely reiterated his former objection and showed no cause why his permit should not be cancelled. Oh the same day, namely, 27-2-1968, the impugned order, Ext. P4, cancelling the permit was made. 4. It is obvious that the appellant had time from 29-1-1968 when he received the first notice, Ext. P1, up to the time of the meeting held on 27-2-1968 to state his objections in writing if he wished to do so. Also, that within this period, he had two opportunities to present his case, in person if he chose to. The learned single judge was clearly right in holding that the appellant had due notice within the meaning of the rule if what the rule contemplates is a show cause notice. 5. Assuming that what the rule contemplates is a quit notice we might observe that although his permit was cancelled on 27-2-1968 the appellant has been operating the service right up to this day on the strength of stay orders issued by this Court. This, in effect, means that he has had more than 21 months' quit notice and no one, we suppose, would say that that is not reasonable notice. 6. Before the learned single judge, the appellant had a case that his permit is really from Kaloor to Kottayam via. Vaikom which is not one of the routes specified for elimination by the approved scheme. 6. Before the learned single judge, the appellant had a case that his permit is really from Kaloor to Kottayam via. Vaikom which is not one of the routes specified for elimination by the approved scheme. Now Kaloor is only a locality in Ernakulam it was within the Ernakulam municipal limits before the Ernakulam Municipality became part of the Cochin Corporation and the learned single judge rightly rejected the contention out of hand with the observa-tion that the appellant's route was covered by the approved scheme which, as we have seen, decreed the elimination of private operators from the Ernakulam-Kottayam (via Vaikom) route. 7. In the result we dismiss this appeal with costs of the 4th respondent State Transport Corporation.