JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The question is whether the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority has jurisdiction to grant temperary permits during the pendency of a scheme of transports published by the State Transport Undertaking under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The Khurja. Pahasu-Chhatari-Debai-Rajghat-Atrauli route lies with-in the territorial jurisdictions of the Regional Transport Authorities of Meerut and Agra. Thirty eight miles of this route are within Meerut while six miles alone are in Agra. During the pendency of the scheme before the State Government the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut issued a notification inviting applications for temporary permits from private operators because the State Transport Undertaking had not till then applied for the grant of any temporary permits. The appellants made the necessary applications. The Regional Transport Authority. Meerut considered them at its meeting held on May 25/29. 1973 and it granted a temporary permit to each of the seven appellants. 3. Respondent No. 3 was an existing operator on this route. He filed a revision. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 25-7-1973 passed an order allowing the revision and quashing the grant of temporary permits to the appellants. It was held that the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to grant these permits. Aggrieved the appellants filed a writ petition in this Court. A learned Single Judge was not impressed by the submissions made in support of it and dismissed it. The temporary permit holders have come up in appeal. 4. Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with control of Transport Vehicles. Section 44 provides for the constitution of a State Transport Authority as well as Regional Transport Authorities. Under clause (b) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 44 the State Transport Authority can perform the duties of a Regional Transport Authority, where there is no such Authority and if it thinks fit or if so required by a Regional Transport Authority, to perform these duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions. Section 45 gives power for granting permits. Under Sub-Section (1) of this Section the Regional Transport Authority, has power to grant permits valid for its own region. The proviso deals with a case where the route lies within two or more regions. Section 45 gives power for granting permits. Under Sub-Section (1) of this Section the Regional Transport Authority, has power to grant permits valid for its own region. The proviso deals with a case where the route lies within two or more regions. In that event, the Regional Transport Authority in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies, has jurisdiction to grant a permit. Thus the scheme of Chapter IV was that the Regional Transport Authority was given the power to grant permits valid for its own region as well as for an inter-regional route provided the major portion of the proposed route lies within its region. The State Transport Authority had power to grant permits only if for a particular region there was no Regional Transport Authority or if an existing Regional Transport Authority itself required the State Transport Authority to take over that function. The State Transport Authority could also grant permits in these rare cases where it thought it to do so. 5. In spite of this classification of powers the various Sections of Chapter IV provided for an application for a permit to be made to the Regional Transport Authority concerned in accordance with Section 45. There is no express provision for making an application for a permit either to the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority "as the case may be" and the reason is not far to seek. Under the scheme of Chapter IV the State Transport Authority came in usually only where for a region there was no existing Regional Transport Authority and where the Regional Transport Authority itself passed over those functions to the State Transport Authority. In that context it was not at all necessary to provide that an application for a permit may be made either to the Regional Transport Authority or to the State Transport Authority as the case may be. 6. The amending Act of 1956 introduced the Chapter IV-A to the Motor Vehicles Act. This provided for a special provision relating to State Transport Undertaking. Under Section 68-C a State Transport Undertaking may notify a scheme of road transport. Under Section 68-D such a scheme was to be published for inviting objections. The State Government finally approves; the scheme as it thought fit after disposing of the objections. The scheme so finalised by the State Government was called the approved scheme. Under Section 68-C a State Transport Undertaking may notify a scheme of road transport. Under Section 68-D such a scheme was to be published for inviting objections. The State Government finally approves; the scheme as it thought fit after disposing of the objections. The scheme so finalised by the State Government was called the approved scheme. Section 68-F (1) provided for the grant of permits. After a scheme had been approved a permit could be granted by the Regional Transport Authority for a route which lay within its region, but for a route or area which lay in more than one region the permit could be granted by the State Transport Authority alone. 7. Sub-Section (1A) was added by the amending Act 56 of 1959. It provided for the grant of temporary permits after the scheme had been published and till it was approved. Sub-Section (1A) contemplated that the State Transport Undertaking may apply for a temporary permit and such application will be dealt with by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority as the case may be. "Under Sub-Section (1C) if no application for a temporary permit is made by the State Transport Undertaking under Sub-Section (1A) then temporary permits could be granted to private operators by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority as the case may be. 8. It will be remembered that in the present case the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut invited applications and it granted temporary permits to the appellants. The question is whether it had power to do so. 9. We have seen that under Chapter IV there was no specification of the State Transport Authority as well as the Regional Transport Authority as the authorities which may entertain applications for permits as the case may be. The use of the phrase "as the case may be" in Sub-secs. (1A) and (1C) of Section 68-F read in the light of the scheme under Chapter IV and the scheme of Sub-Section (1A) of Section 68-F where for the first time the State Transport Authority alone was conferred jurisdiction to grant permits in respect of inter-regional routes, suggests that the mention of the State Transport Authority as one of the authorities who may have jurisdiction to grant permits was made with reference to the classification made in Sub-Section (1) of Section 68-F. 10. The temporary permits contemplated by Sub-secs. The temporary permits contemplated by Sub-secs. (1A) and (1C) could, in our opinion, be granted by the Regional Transport Authority only if the entire route lay within its region. For inter-regional routes the State Transport Authority alone had jurisdiction. 11. In the present case the route in question was an inter-regional one. The Regional Transport Authority, Meerut had no jurisdiction and the grant of temporary permits by it was rightly quashed. 12. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed but we make no order as to costs.