JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The Orissa Road Transport Company Limited, a State Transport Undertaking, is the Petitioner and the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.V. Appeal No. 60 of 1979 affirming the decision of the State Transport Authority granting permit in favour of opposite party No. 4 in respect of the route. ?Berhampur to Chikiti via Girisola? is being challenged in this writ application. 2. By virtue of a notification dated 26th of March, 1964, the route in question came under Nationalisation Scheme after being duly published in the official Gazette under Sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the ?Act?). This notification has been annexed as Annexure-I to the writ- petition. The State Government by its Notification dated 7th of December, 1974, in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-section (2) of Section 68-E of the Act modified, the said scheme in the manner provided thereunder appearing in the Schedule attached to the same. This notification has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In the Schedule, it was clearly indicated that the approved scheme was not applied to transport services running in inter-State routes in pursuance of the terms of the reciprocal agreements between Orissa and other States insofar as such services Cover either a part/parts or whole of the notified routes mentioned in the Schedule-II appended thereto. In Schedule-II, the route, ?Berhampur to Chikiti via Girisola? had been included. After the said notification, the permit granting authority, namely the State Transport Authority (opposite party No. 1) considered the cases of several applicants for grant of permit and in its meeting dated 26th of July, 1979, decided to grant a permanent state carriage permit in favour of opposite party No. 3. This order of opposite party No. 1 which has been annexed as Annexure-2 was challenged in appeal both by the Petitioner as well as opposite party No. 4 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.V. Appeal Nos. 60 and 64 of 1979 respectively. The Tribunal (opposite party No. 2) by a common judgment disposed of both the appeals dismissing the Petitioner?s appeal and allowing the appeal of opposite party No. 4 and granting the permit in favour of opposite party No. 4. 60 and 64 of 1979 respectively. The Tribunal (opposite party No. 2) by a common judgment disposed of both the appeals dismissing the Petitioner?s appeal and allowing the appeal of opposite party No. 4 and granting the permit in favour of opposite party No. 4. Though opposite party No. 3 had challenged the order of the Tribunal granting the permit in favour of opposite party No. 4 in this Court in O.J.C. No. 216 of 1980, yet later on withdrew the same petition. The Petitioner, however, seriously pursued his application. 3. Mr. Y. S. N. Murty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, raises two contentions in assailing the order of the Tribunal He contends that though under Sub-section (2) of Section 68-E of the Act, the State Government is empowered to modify the scheme published under Sub-section (3) of Section 68-D if it considers necessary in the public interest to do so, yet in so doing must follow the procedure provided for in Section 68-E (1) of the Act and since under Sub-section (1) the procedure provided u/s 68-D so far as it can be made applicable has to be followed and, under the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 68-D the scheme relating to any inter-State route must be published with previous approval of the Central Government, the State Government must obtain the previous approval of the Central Government while exercising its power u/s 68-E (2) of the Act. Admittedly, while issuing the notification under Annexure-3, previous approval of the Central Government has not been taken and, therefore, according to Mr. Murty, the impugned order under Annexure-3 is vitiated. In our opinion, the aforesaid contention is wholly misconceived. Sub-section (2) of Section 68-E of the Act starts with the phrase ?Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1). The requirements of exercise of power under Sub-section (2) of Section 68-E are that the State Government must consider it necessary in the public interest to modify a scheme and it must give the State Transport Undertaking as well as any other person who in the opinion of the State Government is likely to be affected by the proposed modification, an opportunity of being heard in respect of the proposed modification. There is no assertion that there has been any lacuna or infirmity on that score. There is no assertion that there has been any lacuna or infirmity on that score. In that view of the matter, there is no justification to import the provision of Sub-section (1) of Section 68-E of the Act into the provision of Sub-section (2) of the said Section. The language is clear and unambiguous and the question of any addition to the same does not arise. The powers conferred under Sub-section (2) of Section 68-E are quite independent of the powers of modification which have been given under Sub-section (1) and if the requirements of the said Sub-section (2) are satisfied, that is to say, if reasonable opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the State Transport Undertaking as well as other persons likely to be affected by the proposed modification and the Government considers it necessary to the modification in public interest, then the said order of modification is valid in all respects. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in rejecting the first contention of Mr. Murty J the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 4. Mr. Murty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, then urges that Schedule-I appended to the notification dated 7th of December, 1974 whereunder the State Government modified the scheme is in relation to transport services running in inter-State route in pursuance of the terms of reciprocal agreement between Orissa and other States. According to the learned Counsel there were no materials before the Tribunal that in respect of the route ?Berhampur to Chikiti via Girisola? there has been any reciprocal agreement between Orissa and Andhra Pradesh though the learned Counsel concedes that it is an inter-State route. Therefore, in the absence of any such reciprocal agreement, the Tribunal was not justified to hold that the modified notification issued by the Government asunder Annexure-3 would apply. This contention of the learned Counsel is also wholly untenable, inasmuch as the impugned order of die Tribunal clearly shows that the Standing Counsel for the. State Transport Authority placed before the Tribunal the reciprocal agreement between the Government of Orissa and the Government of Andhra Pradesh relating to the route in question. In view of this categorical statement made in the order of the Tribunal, we find no justification for the contention urged on behalf of Mr. Murty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and we accordingly reject the same. 5. In view of this categorical statement made in the order of the Tribunal, we find no justification for the contention urged on behalf of Mr. Murty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and we accordingly reject the same. 5. No other contention having been raised, and both the contentions having failed, the writ application fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at rupees one hundred. L. Rath, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed