Judgment :- 1. The two revisions have been filed by Messrs. Pandian Roadways Corporation, Madurai, to challenge the correctness of two orders passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal granting extension of route and reduction of trips to two private operators operating their stage-carriages on routes covered by a Draft Scheme published under S 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act. As common questions of law are involved, the two revisions were heard together and common arguments were advanced on the questions of law. 2. In C.R.P. No. 3117 of 1984, the respondent who was plying his stage-carriage, MDC-697 on the route Butlagundu to Checkanurani, via. Viruveedu and Usilam-patti, had applied for variation as under:— (1) Extension of the route from Checkanurani to Madurai, and (2) Reduction of trips between Butlagundu and Usilampatti touching Rajathanikottai. The Regional Transport Authority, before whom the application was made, issued notifications and heard representations, both for and against and then granted the variation as prayed for. The petitioner, who was Objector No. 15, preferred an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. But, in the said appeal he canvassed the correctness of only one of the two variations that had been granted, viz. , extension of the route from Checkanurani to Madurai. On facts, the Appellate Tribunal found that there was need and justification for the extension. On the legal objection that Madurai to Kumili is a draft scheme route and the scheme eliminates private operators operating their stage carriages for 16 kilometres and above and therefore the grant of extension is not valid, the Tribunal held that “there is no bar for the grant of variation of conditions of permit which the permit-holder is already holding”. By reason of such a finding, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and hence the revision. 3. By reason of such a finding, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and hence the revision. 3. In C.R.P. No. 3118 of 1984 the respondent who was operating a stage-carriage TNR-3794 on the route Elayirampannai to Madurai, via., Sathur, Virudhunagar, Mallanginar, Kalkurichi and Kariapatti with independent shuttle trips bet ween Sathur and Melakottai Vilakku and another independent shuttle trip between Melakottai Vilakku and Elayirampannai, sought variation in the modified form, as against the original prayer as under: (1) Deviation of the route from Melakottai Vilakku to Madurai by means of four singles; (2) Grant of two additional singles between Virudhunagar and Melakottai Vilakku; (3) Curtailment of the route between Kariapatti and Madurai; and (4) Reduction of two singles between Virudhu nagar and Kariapatti. The Regional Transport Authority, after making a notification and hearing the representations, granted the variation prayed for. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Tribunal and in the appeal, only two of the four variations were challenged, viz. , the deviation of the route from Melakottai Vilakku to Madurai and grant of two additional singles between Virudhunagar and Melakottai Vilakku. In this case also, the Appellate Tribunal found justification tin facts for permitting the deviation and the running of the two additional singles. Dealing with the legal objections that the variations relate to a Draft Scheme route, viz.. Madurai to Nagercoil and hence variations are prescribed by S. 68-F(1D) and S. 47(3). the Tribunal has held that the deviation will not constitute a new route as the distance involved is only 23.1. kilometres and furthermore, there is no scope for contending that the grant of variations would amount to granting of a new permit. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and against that order the present revision has been filed. 4. Taking up the first case, it was argued that the original route Butlagundu to Usilampatti was not covered by any Scheme, but the extension of the route from Checkanurani to Madurai will fall within the Draft Scheme route Kumili to Madurai and as such, the grant of variation is forbidden by S. 68-F (1D) of the Motor Vehicles Act, The further contention was that in any case, the variation contravened Cl. (4) of the Scheme as the distance of the varied route is 16.6. kilometres as against the permitted distance of 16 kilometres. 5. (4) of the Scheme as the distance of the varied route is 16.6. kilometres as against the permitted distance of 16 kilometres. 5. The first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the grant of a varied permit to the respondent would amount to granting or renewal of a permit which is expressly forbidden by S. 68-F (1D) of the Act. The further argument was that as per S. 57(8) an application for grant of variation of a permit “shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit”, hence the Transport Authority and the Tribunal have committed an error in granting the variation to the respondents. 6. Refuting these contentions, the learned Counsel for the respondents argued that the granting of variation is neither the granting of a new permit nor the renewal of an earlier permit falling outside S. 68-F(1D), but is only permitting the variation of the conditions of the permit already issued. As existing operators, whose permits expired after the publication of the Draft Scheme are entitled to run in any area, route or portion thereof specified in a scheme, they can seek variation of the conditions of the permit and all that S. 57(8) provides is the procedure to be followed while disposing of the application for variation. It was further argued that since the Transport Authority and the Tribunal have concurreatly found the variation to be justified, the petitioner is not entitled to agitate the validity of the variation in revision proceeding. 7. In C.R.P. No. 3118 of 1984, the argument was that the sector for extension overlaps the Draft Scheme route Nagercoil to Madurai and as such, the grant of variation contravenes S. 68-F(1D) and is also contrary to judicial pronouncements by the Supreme Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In granting the variation sought for, the Transport Authority and the Appellate Tribunal have granted an indirect benefit to the respondent which it is not entitled to get directly. Even otherwise, the variation is inconsistent with the terms of the Scheme and on that one ground alone, the order granting variation is liable to be set aside. In granting the variation sought for, the Transport Authority and the Appellate Tribunal have granted an indirect benefit to the respondent which it is not entitled to get directly. Even otherwise, the variation is inconsistent with the terms of the Scheme and on that one ground alone, the order granting variation is liable to be set aside. 8 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent in C.R.P. No. 3118 of 1984 contended in reply that the grant of variation was neither violative of S. 68-F(1D) nor the judicial pronouncements on the matter, nor was it inconsistent with the terms of the Scheme. 9. For evaluating the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents it is necessary to set out the terms of S. 68-F(1A) (1B), (1C) and (1D) of the Motor Vehicles Act: “S. 68 F:“(1A): Where any scheme has been published by a State Transport Undertaking under S. 68-C, that undertaking may apply for a temporary permit, in respect of an area or route or portion thereof specified in the said scheme, for the period intervening between the date of publication of the scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme, and where such application is made, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall, if it is satisfied that it is necessary to increase, in the public interest, the number of vehicles operating in such area or route or portion thereof, issue the temporary permit prayed for by the State transport undertaking. (1B). A temporary permit issued in pursuance of the provisions of sub S. (1A) shall be effective:— (i) for the scheme as published under sub-S. (3) of S. 68-D, until the grant of the permit to the State transport under sub-S. (1), or (ii) if the scheme is not published under sub-S. (3) of S. 68-D, until the expiration of the one week from the date on which an order under sub-S. (2) of S. 68-D is made. (1C). (1C). If no application for a temporary permit is made under sub-S. (1A), the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, may grant, subject to such conditions as it may think fit, temporary permit to any person in respect of the area or route or portion thereof specified in the scheme and the permit so granted shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State transport undertaking in respect of that area or route or portion thereof. “(1D): Save as otherwise provided in sub-S. (1A) or sub-S. (1C) no permit shall be granted or renewed during the period intervening between the date of publication, under S. 68 C, of any scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme, in favour of any person for any class of road transport service in relation to an area or route or portion thereof covered by such scheme. Provided that where the period of operation of a permit in relation to any area, route or portion thereof, specified in a scheme published under S. 68-C, expires after such publication, such permit may be renewed for a limited period, but the permit so renewed shall cease to be effective on the publication of the scheme under sub-S. (3) of S. 68 D.” We are now concerned with the proviso to sub-S (1D) to S. 68-F. Admittedly, the permit granted to the respondent in each of the petitions expired after the publication of the respective Draft Scheme in each case. Such being the position, the respondent in each case is entitled, as per the proviso, to a renewal of the permit for a limited period, i.e. till the publication of the approved or modified scheme under sub-S.(3) of S 68-D. So far as this position is concerned, there is no controversy or dispute. What was, however, argued was that the granting of a variation would amount to the granting of a new permit or the renewal of a permit falling outside the terms of the proviso to S 68-F (1D). The second criticism was that, in any event, the variation granted was in conflict with the terms of the scheme. 10. So far as the principal controversy is concerned, the matter is not res integrae. The second criticism was that, in any event, the variation granted was in conflict with the terms of the scheme. 10. So far as the principal controversy is concerned, the matter is not res integrae. It is covered by authorities and therefore, I shall now set out the reported decisions that were cited and relied on by the respective parties in support of their differing contentions. Cheran Transport Corporation v. Kannan Lorry Service and another 1 was a case where a stage carriage operator applied for renewal of two permits more the 120 days ahead, as enjoined by the Act. The stage-carriages were plying on routes which had been included in a draft scheme which had been published Therefore, they were cases where the permits were to expire after the publication of the draft scheme. Before the permits were renewed, the State had withdrawn the draft scheme under Part IV-A for some technical reason and republished the scheme. As the republication of the scheme was done after the permits of the operator had expired, the Regional Transport Authority refused to countenance the applications for renewal under the proviso to S. 68-F(1D) and rejected the applications. This order was set aside by this Court and the authorities were directed to grant the renewal. Against that order, the Transport undertaking went on appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that as per the original draft scheme the permits of the operator were to expire after the scheme had been published and in such circumstances, the operator was entitled to obtain renewal of the permits under the proviso to S 68-F(1D) and that the republication of the scheme would sot affect the rights of the operator to seek renewal. It was, however, pointed out that the renewal could only be to the extent expressly saved by S. 68-F(1D). This authority is not of much help for deciding the controversy on hand, because what the petitioner objects is to the variation that has been granted and not mere renewal of the original permits that had been issued. 11. The second case to be noticed is Mohd. Yousuf Basha v. A.P.S.R.T.C. 2 That was a case where a variation had been granted to a stage carriage operator whose permit had expired after the publication of a draft scheme. 11. The second case to be noticed is Mohd. Yousuf Basha v. A.P.S.R.T.C. 2 That was a case where a variation had been granted to a stage carriage operator whose permit had expired after the publication of a draft scheme. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that S. 68-F (1D) freezes the state of passenger transportation as it existed on the date of the draft notification under S. 68-C till the scheme is approved and published under S. 68-D, that the granting of variation of a route would exceed the limited provision made under the proviso to S. 6S-F(1-D) and therefore the variation cannot be sustained. This decision was heavily relied on by the counsel for the petitioner in support of the petitioners case. 12. Another decision on which reliance was placed by the petitioners counsel was Taxi Owners United Transport v. State Transport Authority 3. In that case an operator had been granted permits to ply vehicles on specified routes within the State of Orissa with counter-signature from the Transport authorities of Madhya Pradesh State, for plying the buses in certain areas of that State. When the permits expired the operator failed to apply for renewal from the State Transport Authority, Orissa, and started plying his vehicles to different points in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Supreme Court held that the operator would not be entitled to ply the vehicles on the basis of the permits originally granted by the Regional Transport Authority of Orissa. Nor would he be entitled to ply the vehicles on the strength of the psrmits granted earlier by the Transport Authority of Madhya Pradesh and that “what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly”. The Petitioners counsel argued, that this ratio must be applied in these two cases, because the respondents would not be entitled to seek grant of new permits on the varied routes and such being the case, they cannot circumvent the position by asking for variation of the permits already issued to them. Even this decision does not throw light on the main question arising for consideration, viz. , whether the grant of variation of a permit to an operator, covered by the proviso to S. 68-F(1-D), would amount to granting a new permit or the renewal of a permit falling outside the terms of S. 68-F(1D). 12. Even this decision does not throw light on the main question arising for consideration, viz. , whether the grant of variation of a permit to an operator, covered by the proviso to S. 68-F(1-D), would amount to granting a new permit or the renewal of a permit falling outside the terms of S. 68-F(1D). 12. An unreported decision which is of considerable relevance to these petitions has been rendered by K.B.N. Singh, C.J., and Venkataswami, J., in Kallalagar Transport, Thirumangalam etc., and others v. Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd., Madurai and others 1 . The fact in one of those cases, viz. , C.R.P. No. 2153 of 1983, as seen from the Judgment, are as follows: The petitioner therein was the holder of a stage-carriage permit for its Bus MAD 6456 plying on the route Vagaikulam to S.P. Natham, via. Kandai, Pungankulam, Sithalai, Urappanur, Thirumangalam, Alampatti, Sengapadai, Karaisal, and Bulampatti touching Mela Urappanur. It moved the Regional Transport Authority for variation involving (a) grant of extension of the route from Vagaikulam to Kanavai, Sathaiah Koil via. Chellampatti, (b) reduction of six singles from Thirumangalam to S.P. Natham and (e) reduction of singles from Thirumangalam to Vagaikulam. The first Authority, namely the Regional Transport Authority granted extension upto Chettiapatti instead of Kanavai Sathaiahkoil and all the other requests in full. The respondent therein, aggrieved by that order, preferred an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. It is of significance that the extension applied for by the petitioner touched a portion of a scheme route, viz., Madurai to Kumili. The sector which fell within the scheme route was Chellampatti to Chettiapatti. Applying an earlier decision of this Court in C.R.P. No. 807 of 1981, the Tribunal cancelled the extension from Chellampatti to Caettiapatti as the sector fell within the scheme route. It however did not interfere with that portion of the extension, namely Vagaikulam to Chellampatti on the ground that that sector was not covered by any notified route. The matter came up to this Court against the said ord er of the Tribunal. The terms of the scheme which had been published in that case prescribed the area of route as Madurai to Kumili with shuttle trips between (1) Madurai and Usilampatti, and (2)Cumbum to Kumili. The matter came up to this Court against the said ord er of the Tribunal. The terms of the scheme which had been published in that case prescribed the area of route as Madurai to Kumili with shuttle trips between (1) Madurai and Usilampatti, and (2)Cumbum to Kumili. Column 3 of the scheme stated that the operation of the transport undertaking would be “to the complete exclusion of other persons in respect of permits covering the entire area of route referred to above.” Schedule II of the scheme set out under Column 2 the route, viz., starting paint and terminus with important intermediate stations and route length, etc, and column 7 dealt with the particulars of portion of the route or the area covered by the scheme. That clause contained the following particulars: “ Number of stage-carriages: Number of services performed. (a) Now operated by other persons. As in Annexure II. (b) Proposed to be permitted to be operated by other persons to maintain continuity of their existing services on route or area not covered by the scheme and the duration.” Same as in Annexure II without prejudice to any future modifications, variations, etc.” What fell for consideration in that case was whether an operator plying a stage-carriage on sectors of the route covered by the scheme will be entitled to seek renewal of permit under S. 68-F(1D). While the transport undertaking took the extreme contention that even a person operating a stage-carriage in sectors of the route covered by the scheme will not be entitled to seek renewal, the operator contended that Schedule I contained the prescription and not schedule Hand therefore, it was only an operator who was operating on the entire length of the scheme route who would not be entitled to seek renewal and the interdiction would not apply the operators plying buses in intermediate sector covered by the route. The Division Bench accepted this contention and held as follows: “Beaing in mind the law laid down by the Supreme Court in D.M. Thippeswamy v. Mysore Appellate Tribunal 1 wherein it has been held that when deciding what action to take under S. 68-F(2), the Authority is tied down by the terms and conditions of the approved scheme and its duty is merely to do what is necessary to give effect to the provisions of the scheme, we have to interpret the scope and extent of the scheme. The first schedule, which is the opinion of a Division Bench of this Court (vide. W.P. No. 4429/1975 and W.A. Nos. 514 and 515/76) gives the main and sole intent and object of the scheme (sic). The column in the first schedule expresses in unequivocal terms that the operation by the State transport undertaking is to the complete exclusion of other persons in respect of permits covering the entire route referred to in Item I above, namely Madurai to Kumili. It is to be noted that the exclusion is only in respect of operators having permits covering the entire notified route. It is also clear from the answers given against columns 2 and 3 of schedule I that it is not the intention of the Scheme to exclude other persons to operate buses on sectors of the route covered by the scheme. As a imitate of fact, the scheme permits and allows other, operators to pick up or drop passengers between any two places on the route covered by the scheme. That is clear from the answer given in the affirmative against column 3 (iii) of Schedule I.” In view of this decision, it has to be held that in spite of the draft schemes, the respondents would not stand excluded of their right to operate stage carriages on the respective sectors of the route even though they are covered by the draft schemes. 13. The basis on which the petitioner would say that the grant of variation would amount to a new permit is S. 57(8) of the Act. 13. The basis on which the petitioner would say that the grant of variation would amount to a new permit is S. 57(8) of the Act. That sub-section lays down that an application to vary the conditions of any permit in one of the modes indicated therein “shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit.” The scope and effect of S. 57(8) has already been determined by the Supreme Court in K.S R.T. Corporation, Bangalore v. B.A. Jayarama 2. That was also a case where applications had been made for variation of conditions of a stage-carriage permit by increasing the number of trips on certain routes which were covered by a draft scheme. The question, therefore, arose whether the applications would amount to applications for grant of new permits in terms of S. 57(8). The Supreme Court held as follows. “Sub-S. (8) comes immediately after sub-S (3) to (7) and, when read in the context of these sub-sections and in juxtaposition with them, it is clear that the legislative intent in enacting that sub-section was to prescribe the procedure to be followed when an application for variation of the conditions of a permit referred to in that sub-section is made, this procedure being the same as laid down in sub-S. (3) to (7) with respect to an application for a new stage-carriage permit or a new public carrier permit. It is for the purpose of providing that the procedure to be followed in the case of an application made under sub-S.(8) is to be the same as the procedure to be followed in the case of an application for a new permit that sub-S.(8) uses the words, “sall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit.” By the use of these words what sub-S.(t) does Is to incorporate in it the provisions of sub-S. (3) to (7). This is a very different thing from enacting a legal fiction.” [Para 16] “Assuming, therefore, that an application for variation of the conditions of a permit referred to in sub-S. (8) of S. 57 is to be deemed by a fiction of law to be an application for the grant of a new permit, the question to which we must address ourselves is, for what purpose is such an application for variation deemed to be an application for grant of a new permit. Reading sub-Ss. (3) to (7) of S. 57 as a whole, it is clear that the only purpose is to apply to such an application for variation the procedure prescribed by sub-Ss. (3.) to (7) of S. 57, and not for the purpose of providieg that when the application for variation is granted the permit so varied would be deemed to be a new permit. If a permit so varied were to be deemed to be a new permit, the result would be anomalous.” [Para 17] 14. From this authoritative pronouncement, it may be seen that even though an application for variation of the conditions of a permit has to be treated as a new application for permit under S. 57 (8), the prescription has been made only to set out the procedure to be followed, and not to change the character of the permit into a fresh or new permit. It therefore follows that the principal ground of attack of the petitioners, viz. , that the application for variation made by the respondent in each case takes the application out of the ambit of the proviso to S. 68-F(1D) and makes the respective application one for grant of a new permit which is forbidden by S. 68-F(1D) cannot be sustained. 15. Coming, now, to the second contention, in C.R.P. No. 3117 of 1984 it was argued that as per Cl. (4) of Schedule II of the draft scheme, the scheme contemplates exclusion of other persons operating on the route and/or sectors of the route for 16 kilometres and more except the State transport undertakings of the State and other persons of other States operating under inter-State agreement. So far as the extension of the route from Checkanurani to Madurai is concerned, the distance is said to be 16.6 kilometres, i.e., exceeding the permitted limit by 0 6 kilometre. In C.R.P. No. 3118 of 1984, Cl. (4) of Schedule II of the scheme prescribes the exclusion of other persons operating on the route or secto s thereof for 23 kilometres and above. The extension route, Melakottai Vilakku to Madurai, is said to be of a distance of 23. 1 kilometres, i.e. , exceeding the prescribed limit by 0.1. kilometre. As far as these objections are concerned, it has to be pointed out that such objections had not been raised before the Transport Authority or the Appellate Tribunal. The extension route, Melakottai Vilakku to Madurai, is said to be of a distance of 23. 1 kilometres, i.e. , exceeding the prescribed limit by 0.1. kilometre. As far as these objections are concerned, it has to be pointed out that such objections had not been raised before the Transport Authority or the Appellate Tribunal. Moreover, it is a contention pertaining to facts. Because such a contention had not been raised before the authorities below, the respondents have not had any opportunity to controvert the statement or to prove that the distances of the routes are within the permitted limit. That apart, the Bench decision in Kallalagar Transport, Thirumangalam etc.. and others v. Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd., Madurai and others 1 also contains an answer to this argument. The Division Bench has held that schedule I in every scheme lays down the policy and the particulars given in Schedule II are only informatory or descriptive, but not restrictive. It must therefore be taken that the limits of distance contained in Clause (4) also of the Schedule, in each draft scheme, is only of a directory nature, and not of a mandatory character. The logical view to be taken, therefore, is that in appropriate cases it will be open to the transport authorities to grant variations so as to enable the oprators seeking renewal of permits under S. 6S-F(1D) to ply their stage-carriages on sectors in routes covered by draft scheme even if the distance exceeds by a small margin the limitations contained in the draft scheme, if such variations are in public interest. In the first case, the excess distance is said to be only 0.6 kilometre and in the other case it is only 0.1 kilometre. The excess distances are therefore of a marginal character. On account of all these factors, the second ground of objection raised by the petitioner must also fail. 16. In the result, both the revisions will stand dismissed. But, there will be no order as to costs. The interim stay granted on 17th August, 1984 In C.M.P. Nos. 10809 and 10819 of 1984 in the respective civil revision Petitions will stand vacated and those miscellaneous petitions will also stand dismissed.