CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a holder of several permits to operate stage carriages on a number of routes in the districts of dakshina Kannada, Shimoga and other neighbouring districts. He held a permit on loute Shimoga to Jog Via Anandapuram and Sagar, That permit bearing no. EP. 25/58 was granted by the Regional Transport authority, Shimoga, (hereinafter referred to as the R. T. A.) the 2nd respondent herein. On 19-6-1975 he made an application under sub-sec. (8) of Sec. 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for varying the conditions of that permit so as to include the new route from shimoga to Channsgiri Via Lakkina- koppa, Hiriyur, Bhadravathi, Kudligere Jolahal and back to Shimoga Vis Jigaradahalli, Holehonnur and Pillengeri with cerian schedule of timings which he had indicated That was duly published ineiting objections. As many es 1 5 objectors filed their objections to the pisposed vacation of the conditions of the permit in question. However, the r T. A. refused the variation on the sole ground that the variation sought tor would involve the petitioner traversing some distance of route notified in a draft scheme published by the State tianspcrt Undertaking known as 'davanagere pocket Scheme'. That draft scheme was published as far back as 9-8-1973. Aggrieved by that resolution of the R. T. A. rejecting his application for variation, he preferred an appeal to the Karnataka State Transport Appellate tribunal, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No. 165/1977. That appeal came to be dismissed for the reasons : (1) that there is no need to introduce a service after 7-30 P. M. (2) that the proposed variation would involve overlapping part of the route notified in the draft scheme under Sec. 68c of the Act. Therefore, the present writ petition challenging the findings of both the r. T. A. and the 1st respondent-Tribunall inter alia contsnding that the reasoning of the Tribunal that the need was not established was contrary to the material on record and was on a tolal misunderstanoing of the submissions made by the counsel. ( 2 ) WHATEVER may be the merit in the contentions advanced, the undisputed fact is that a short distance between Channagiri Toll Gate and Ajjihalli road cross on the route in question is part of one cf the routes notified in the davanagere Pocket Scheme. ( 2 ) WHATEVER may be the merit in the contentions advanced, the undisputed fact is that a short distance between Channagiri Toll Gate and Ajjihalli road cross on the route in question is part of one cf the routes notified in the davanagere Pocket Scheme. In the normal course the real question that arises for consideration is whether there is any prohibition to grant a variation of the conditions of the permit on account of the existence of a draft scheme having regard to the prohibition contained in sec. 68f (1-D) of the Act- That speaks of not granting of a permit or renewing a permit in respect of a route or part of a route in a draft scheme published under Sec. 68c of the Act except in accordance with Secs. 68f (1-A) and 68f (1-C) of the Act. ( 3 ) I do not think on the facts of this casei should examine the contention which is not specifically taken. It suffices to notice that the draft scheme published in 1973 has yet remained a draft scheme even after 13 years. The supreme Court in the case of Phool chand Gupta v Regional Transport Authority, ujjain and others (A. I. PL 1986 S. C. 119) h,,3 taken the view that unreasonable delvry in the publication of the approved scheme would render the draft scheme unconstitutional. On the facts of that case, the scheme in question was quashed as for over 20 years, nothing was done to publish the approved scheme. The question of what constitutes unreasonable delay would be a question of fact which should be examined in respect of each draft scheme published and the reasons of State Transport Undertaking's failure to finalise the scheme and publish the approved scheme. Therefore, having regard to the fact that in the instant case the petitioner was unable to operate the route in respect of which he asked for variation on account of the refusal of the variation both by the R. T. A. and the tribunal, it would not be proper for this court now to determine whether such variation shouid be granted. In the light of the admitted fact that it overlape parity though to a very small extent, a portion of the notified route, the proper thing would be for the petitioner to challenge the validity of the draft scheme which appears to be the bar in his way to get the variation. If that bar is eliminated then there cannot be any objection from any quarter on the facts as stated for the variation being secured. ( 4 ) SUBJECT to the above observation, this petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the davanagere Pocket Draft Scheme published in the Gazette dated 9-8-1973 as unconstitutional on account of the undue delay in publishing the approved scheme under the provisions of Chapter iv-A of the Act. --- *** --- .