JUDGMENT 1. - In exercise of its powers under section 68-D (3), Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, the Act), the State Government of Rajasthan published in the Official Gazettee, dated, January 13, 1977, a scheme as approved under section 68-D (2) of the Act, laying down that passenger road transport services described in details in paragraph 1 of the scheme, which includes the Dag- Chomela route, shall be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking, i. e. the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC), to the complete exclusion of all other persons. The said scheme will hereinafter be referred to as the nationalisation scheme. Paragraph 4 of the nationalisation scheme is important for our present purpose and should therefore be reproduced here in its entirety. Translated from its original in Hindi, it reads:No permit for passenger road transport services (stage carriage or contract carriage) in respect of route or part of route mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be granted to any person under existing or future agreements between the States, except to the RSRTC and to the State Transport undertakings of the States under the said agreements.It may straight away be mentioned here that the law is well settled that the nationalisation scheme, like all such schemes finalised and approved under section 68-D (3) of the Act, is statutory in character and therefore has to be enforced and administered like any other law. 2. The petitioner, Hari Chand Kalra, is a private transporter, holding a stage carriage permit (Annexure P 1) on the inter-State route, Aagar to Chomela, granted by the State Transport Authority, Madhya Pradesh in April, 1975 which was renewed from time to time subsequently. This permit used to be countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority, Kota, to validate the same for the Dag-Chomela portion which lies within the area of the State of Rajasthan. As a consequence of the enforcement of the nationalisation scheme the RTA Kota served a notice (Annexure P. 6) dated November 6/30, 1979, on the petitioner calling upon him to produce before the RTA his permit in respect of the inter-State route of Aagar-Chomela so that the RTA could make the necessary endorsement on it devalidating it in respect of the notified route from Dag to Chomela in Rajasthan, and in the meantime to stop operating on the Dag-Chomcla portion of the inter-State route covered by his permit. Instead of complying with this notice, the petitioner filed this writ petition in March 1980, challenging the validity of the notice and of paragraph 4 of the nationalised scheme on all sorts of grounds. He also succeeded in obtaining an interim order from this Court as a result of which he kept plying his vehicle ran the notified route in contravention of the nationalised scheme for a number of years. The interim order was at last vacated only recently, i. e. on September 10, 1984. 3. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, laid main stress on his argument that since the nationalisation scheme, as promulgated in the instant case, did not carry the previous approval of the Central Government, it could not affect the inter-State route of Aagar-Chomela and that therefore the RTA is not legally justified in devalidating the petitioner's permit on this route. Mr. Sharma relied on the proviso to section 68-D (3) of the Act and contended that the said proviso expressly excludes the inter-State route from the operation of the nationalisation scheme which had been published without the previous approval of the Central Government. The proviso relied upon by Mr. Sharma reads : Provided that no such scheme which related to any inter-State route shall be deemed to be an approved scheme unless it has been published in the Official Gazette with the previous approval of the Central Government. A plain reading of the proviso would show that the exception carved thereby is in respect of an inter-State route which an approved scheme might seek to nationalise. The proviso enacts, in effect, that no inter-State route may be nationalised without the previous approval of the Central Government. The nationalisation scheme, in the instant case does not, as already indicated, seek to nationalise the Aagar-Chomela route which is undoubtedly an inter-State route. All that the nationalisation scheme does is to nationalise the Dag- Chomela route which of course happens to be a portion of the inter-State route of Aagar-Chomela. The mere fact that the Dag-Chomela route is a portion of Aagar-Chomela route(which is an inter-State route) is no ground for treating the Dag-Chomela route as if it were an inter-State by itself for the purpose of the applicability of the proviso. The mere fact that the Dag-Chomela route is a portion of Aagar-Chomela route(which is an inter-State route) is no ground for treating the Dag-Chomela route as if it were an inter-State by itself for the purpose of the applicability of the proviso. As the Supreme Court explained in B. H. Aswathanarayana Singh v. State of Mysore, AIR 1965 S. C. 1848 , an inter-State route is one in which one of the termini is in one State and the other in another State. Their lordships made it further clear that when both the termini of a particular route are in one State, such a route cannot by any means he called an inter-State route. Now, both the termini of the notified route of Dag to Chomela are admittedly located in the State of Rajasthan. Therefore, this is obviously an intra-State route and not an inter-State route. The nationalisation scheme relates to this route and not to the inter-State route of Aagar to Chomela. Hence the proviso has no application to this route. 4. This view finds support from a string of authorities of this Court including Samarath Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1981 Weekly Law Notes 406 . Mr. Sharma, however, contended that the judgment in Samarathial's case in under challenge in appeal before the Supreme Court and that a stay order has also been obtained from the Supreme Court. I have seen the stay order and find that so far as the instant case is concerned it will be of no help to the petitioner. Their Lordships made it expressly clear that there shall be no general stay operating against the enforcement of the approved scheme. The petitioner in that case was permitted to ply his buses "subject to corridor restrictions over the nationalised portions of the routes". Now there is no question of "corridor restrictions" in the instant case, for the inter-State route of' Aagar-Chomela is left with no corridor as such, if Dag-Chomela portion is taken out of it. The concept of "Corridor restrictions" can be understood only in respect of an inter-State route which, while passing through the area of the other State, covers a notified route and then extends along a non-notified route upto the other termini in that State. It may then be said that the private operator may ply his buses with "corridor restrictions" in respect of the notified route. It may then be said that the private operator may ply his buses with "corridor restrictions" in respect of the notified route. There is no question of "corridor restrictions" in respect of an inter-State route whose originating terminus is in the State issuing the permit and the other terminus is situate in the adjoining State on a notified route starting from a point on the inter-State route which coincides with a point on the border of the two States. In any case, the mere fact that the Supreme Court has granted some kind of stay in another case is no ground for holding that the view taken by this Court in that case has not found favour with the Supreme Court. In its very nature, stay order does not decide anything. There is no ratio decidendi in a stay order which could be applied for the decision of other cases. 5. Mr. Sharma then contended that by refusing to validate the inter- State permit in respect of its Dag-Chomela portion on the plea that Dag- Chomela has become a notified route on the commencement of the nationalised scheme, the RTA Kota has acted in a mariner which amounts to the contravention of the agreement arrived at between the States of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan in accordance with the provisions of section 63 of the Act and that the agreement in question also carries the force of law. This argument is, in my opinion, wholly devoid of force. The agreement in question is the outcome of the exercise of executive functions by the States concerned. Such an agreement cannot be equated with or elevated to the position of law, strictly so called Even assuming that it is law, the nationalised scheme would override it by virtue of the provisions of section 68-O of the Act. 6. Mr. Sharma is unable to give any valid reason why paragraph 4 of the nationalisation scheme should be struck down as unconstitutional or illegal. It is now well settled that Chapter IV-A of the Act conferring monopoly on the State in respect of transport services to the partial or complete exclusion of other persons is intra-wires the powers of Parliament and perfectly valid and Constitutional. It is now well settled that Chapter IV-A of the Act conferring monopoly on the State in respect of transport services to the partial or complete exclusion of other persons is intra-wires the powers of Parliament and perfectly valid and Constitutional. Paragraph 4 of the nationalised scheme confers a monopoly on the RSRTC and the State Transport Undertaking of Madhya Pradesh in respect of the passenger transport services on the notified route of Dag to Chomela which is in Rajasthan. The petitioner who is a private operator of Madhya Pradesh can have no legitimate grievance if a nationalisation scheme of Rajasthan in respect of an intra-State route in Rajasthan prefers the State Transport Undertaking of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan and totally excludes private operators whether belonging to Madhya Pradesh or Rajasthan, from operating their buses on the notified route of Dag-Chomela located entirely in the territory of the State of Rajasthan. 7. Lastly, Mr. Sharma contended that the impugned notice was issued by the RTA after a lapse of more than two years from the date of commencement of the nationalisation scheme and that this should be taken to mean that when follow-up action was taken to enforce the scheme in February 1977 the RTA did not devalidate the petitioner's permit for this route because the intendment of the nationalisation scheme was to exclude the private operators holding inter-State permits granted by other States from the mischief of the nationalisation scheme. This argument is, on the face of it, wholly baseless. Any act of omission or commission by the KTA, while administering ands enforcing the nationalisation scheme, cannot alter the plain meaning and effect of the scheme As already explained, private operators, regardless of the thay whether they hold permits issued by the authorities in Rajasthan or Madhya Pradesh stand totally excluded by the nationalisation scheme from op eraing on the notified route of Dag-Chomela in Rajasthan. The mere fact that the RTA acted in the instant case after a delay of more than two years is no ground for setting aside his action. After all, he realised, though belatedly, that the petitioner cannot be lawfully allowed to operate on this route. The mere fact that the RTA acted in the instant case after a delay of more than two years is no ground for setting aside his action. After all, he realised, though belatedly, that the petitioner cannot be lawfully allowed to operate on this route. The petitioner cannot be allowed to perpetuate an illegality merely because he got away with it for more than two years by reasons of the failure of the RTA to act and thereafter by reason of a stay order obtained from this Court. 8. For all these reasons, this writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The rule is therefore discharged and the stay application is also dismissed finally.Petition dismissed. *******