SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) IN all these petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the impugned notices issued by the Secretaries of Regional Transport Authorities, chitradurga and Tumkur respectively. The petitioners have not challenged the validity of the approved scheme of chitradurga-Davangere (on N. H. 4 Road) published in the Official Gazette extra-ordinary dated 23-9-1987 as per sub-section (3) of Section 68d of the Motor vehicle Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') under the notification bearing No. PTD 57 TMI87 dated 23-9 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'approved Scheme' ). This scheme was published under Section 68c of the Act on 15-10-1985. It pertains to only one route i. e. , Chitradurga- Davangere (on n. H. 4 Road ). This scheme in this order will be referred to as 1985 Draft Scheme". The petitioners have also sought for leave of the court to challenge the approved scheme if need be, afterwards. Leave is granted. ( 2 ) THE Secretaries, of Regional Transport authorities, Chitradurga and Tumkur by the impugned notices have informed the petitioners that their permits have ceased to be effective in respect of the overlapping "shri T. G. Niranjan, door No. 325, 9th Cross, pj. Extension, Davangere sub: Stopping operation of service. Your permit No. P. St. P. 55/59-60 for the route Davangere to Bada and back and to touch Anagodu from Bada was renewed vice resolution No. dated 25-3-1983 subject to proviso to 68f (ID) and it ceases to be effective on the publication of the scheme. As the approved scheme of chitradurga - Davangere (N. H. 4) has now been published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 23-9-1987, your permit renewed as above ceases to be effective on the route portion as noted below by operation of law. You have to curtail the operation of the service forthwith. For this purpose you have to produce the permit Part 'a' and 'b' and get necessary endorsement within 3 (three) days from the date of receipt of this notice. a) The portion of the route from davangere to Bada cross and back (N. H. 4) is curtailed. You have to curtail the operation of the service forthwith. For this purpose you have to produce the permit Part 'a' and 'b' and get necessary endorsement within 3 (three) days from the date of receipt of this notice. a) The portion of the route from davangere to Bada cross and back (N. H. 4) is curtailed. " If you fail to curtail the operation of your service on the above-mentioned portion of the route covered under the permit and surrender the permit for necessary endorsement, action will be initiated under the provisions of the motor Vehicles Act, 1939. portion of the route included in the "approved scheme" of Chitradurga- davangere (on N. H. 4 Road); therefore, they must produce their permits Parts 'a' and B' and get the necessary endorsements made within three days from the date of receipt of the notices failing which necessary action will be taken against them in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As the impugned notices issued to the petitioners are similar, it is sufficient to reproduce one each notice - annexure-A in W. P. Nos. 14722 to 14724 of 1987, which reads as follows: sd/- xxxx secretary, regional Transport authority, chitradurga. " ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that all these petitioners hold stage carriage permits renewed on the various dates pertaining to various routes overlapping certain portion of the notified route - Chitradurga to davangere (on N. H. 4 Road ). These permits were renewed prior to the publication of the "1985 Draft Scheme" (Chitradurga- Davangere Scheme (on n. H. 4 road) under Section 68c of the Act which was published on 15-10-1985. These permits were renewed prior to the publication of the "1985 Draft Scheme" (Chitradurga- Davangere Scheme (on n. H. 4 road) under Section 68c of the Act which was published on 15-10-1985. ( 4 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned notices are issued without the authority of law in as much as the provisions of Section 68f (1d) of the Act are not attracted to the permits held by the petitioners; that after the promulgation of the approved chitradurga-Davangere Scheme (on N. H. 4 road), in the Karnataka Gazette extra-ordinary dated 23-9-1987, the procedure prescribed by the State Transport undertaking (Karnataka) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'stu Rules') ought to have been followed; that the State transport Authority or the Regional transport Authority, as the case may be, ought to have published the notification as per Rule 10 of the STU Rules which is mandatory; that without complying with rules 10 to 12 and 14 and 15 of the STU rules, there is no authority vested in the regional Transport Authority of State transport Authority, as the case may be, to curtail the routes by issuing impugned notices; that the provisions of Section 68f (1d) of the Act are not attracted to the permits in question; and that it is sub-section (2) of Section 68f of the Act that is attracted. ( 5 ) ON the contrary, it is contended by learned High Court Government Pleader and also Sri K. Balakrishna, learned counsel for the K. S. R. T. C. that there was a draft scheme known as Davangere Pocket Scheme comprising 51 routes published under section 68c of the Act on 24-7-1973; (This draft scheme will hereinafter be referred to as 1973 Draft Scheme') that chitradurga-Davangere route was one of the routes included at Serial No. 3 in the "1973 draft scheme" : that it was during the subsistence of the "1973 Draft Scheme" permits of the petitioners were renewed subject to the conditions contained in the proviso to Section 68f (1d) of the Act; that even though the Supreme Court in K. T. DHARANENDRAIAH v THE REGIONAL transport AUTHORITY AND others (A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 1324) has quashed the aforesaid "1973 Draft Scheme" of Davangere Pocket, nevertheless, before the said "1973 draft scheme" was quashed on 17-2-1987, there was another "1985 draft scheme " published under Section 68c of the act, on 15-10-1985 in respect of the route in question and that "1985 draft scheme" is saved by the , Supreme Court in dharanendraiah's case, therefore, it is contended that the "1973 draft scheme" of davangere Pocket in so far it related to the -route in question must be deemed to have been continued; that as a consequence thereof the conditions imposed on the permits while renewing them must be deemed to have been continued. Hence it is contended that Section 68f (1d) of the Act is attracted; that the action taken is justified in as much as, in a situation like this, STU rules are not attracted; that the petitioners having participated in the proceedings at the time of finalising the "1985 drafts scheme" must be deemed to have acquiesced in the "approved scheme;" therefore, it is not open to them to challenge the impugned notices which are issued pursuant to promulgation of the very "approved scheme". ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid rival contentions the points that arise for consideration are as follows :1) Whether the "1985 Draft Scheme" relating to the route chitradurga-Davangere published on 15-10-1985 under Section 68c of the act is different from or the continuation of the "1973 Draft scheme" published on 9-8-1973 under section 68c of the Act?2) Whether the judgment of the Supreme court in K. T. Dharanendraiah's case has the effect of continuing the "1973 draft scheme" of Davangere Pocket in so far it related to Chitradurga Davangere route (on N. H. 4 Road) and as such "1985 Draft Scheme" of chitradurga- Davangere published on 15-10-1985 is the continuation of "1973 draft Scheme"?3) Whether the provisions of Section 68f (1d) of the Act are attracted to the permits held by the petitioners? point NOS. 1 and 2 ( 7 ) THESE two points are inter-connected, therefore they are dealt with together. The "1973 draft scheme" was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 9-8-1973 under the Notification dated 24-7-1973. It related to 51 routes as stated in Appendix-A to the scheme. Route No. 3 was Chitradurga to Davangere. The permits in question were held by the petitioners on the date of publication of that scheme on 9-8-1973 but they expired during the subsistence of the said "1973 draft scheme". These permits were renewed from time to time during the subsistence of the cc. "1973 draft scheme. " Of course these renewals were made subject to the conditions contained in the proviso to section 68f (ID) of the Act. One of the operators namely, K. T. Dharanendraiah challenged the "1973 draft scheme" of davangere Pocket in the Supreme Court. The "1973 draft scheme" was quashed by the supreme Court. Before it was quashed, there was another "1985 draft scheme" for one route from Chitradurga to Davangere (on N. H. 4 Road) published in the Karnataka gazette dated 15-10-1985. One of the operators namely, K. T. Dharanendraiah challenged the "1973 draft scheme" of davangere Pocket in the Supreme Court. The "1973 draft scheme" was quashed by the supreme Court. Before it was quashed, there was another "1985 draft scheme" for one route from Chitradurga to Davangere (on N. H. 4 Road) published in the Karnataka gazette dated 15-10-1985. The contention of the respondents is that as the route covered by the "1985 draft scheme" is one of the routes included in the "1973 draft scheme," the "1985 draft scheme" cannot at all be held or considered to be different; therefore the fact that the "1973 draft scheme"'davangere pocket was quashed by the Supreme Court in k. T. Dharanendraiah's case (A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 1324) did not affect as far as route No. 3 of the "1973 draft scheme" of Davangere pocket because it was included in the "1985 draft scheme" published on 15-10-1985. It appears to me that it is not possible to accept this contention. Each scheme is a different entity and is complete by itself unless contents of the scheme makes it otherwise and purports to be the continuation of the old scheme. Merely because one of the routes included in the"1973 draft scheme" of Davangere Pocket was also included in the "1985 draft scheme" of Chitradurga-Davangere (on N. H. 4 Road) published on 15-10-1985, it is not possible to hold that "1985 draft scheme" is not different from, the "1973 draft scheme" Davangere pocket. In fact "1973 Draft Scheme"pertained to 151 routes lying in the District of chitradurga including some inter-regional routes whereas the "1985 Draft Scheme" pertains to only one route viz. , Chitradurga to Davangere. No doubt this route also was included in the "1973 draft scheme" but it is not possible to hold that "1985 draft scheme" is the continuation of the "1973 draft scheme. "as per Rule 4 of the S. T. U Rules, the scheme has to be published under Section 68c of the Act in Form-A whereas the scheme modifying the existing scheme has to be published as per the very route in form-B. "1973 Draft Scheme" and "1985 draft scheme" are published in Form-A only. Section 68e of the Act provides that any scheme published under sub-section (3) of section 68d of the Act may at any time be cancelled or modified by the State Transport undertaking. Section 68e of the Act provides that any scheme published under sub-section (3) of section 68d of the Act may at any time be cancelled or modified by the State Transport undertaking. The procedure laid down in sections 68c and 68d in so far as it can be made applicable has to be followed in every case where the scheme is proposed to be cancelled or modified as if the proposal were a separate scheme. This pertains to modification or otherwise of the "approved scheme". There is no specific provision relating to modification of the draft scheme. Therefore, it follows that any number of draft schemes can be published and each draft scheme can be independent of the other as long as it does not accord or with similar to the earlier draft scheme. The Supreme court in M/s. STANDARD MOTOR union PRIVATE LTD. v STATE OF kerala AND OTHER (A. I. R. 1969 s. C. 273) considered the effect of promulgation of the new scheme on the existing scheme and held as follows :"6 The impugned scheme is in partial exclusion of operators from Kottayam ernakulam and Kottayam-Erattupettah routes and 7 other routes. It is common case that there were earlier schemes relating to the Kottayam-Ernakulam and kottayam-Erattupettah routes. In so far as the impugned scheme excludes private operators from those routes, it has the effect of modifying the earlier schemes. The appellant's contention is that the impugned scheme is invalid as the modifications of the earlier schemes were made without complying with the provisions of Section 68e. In our opinion, this contention is baseless. The new scheme has been proposed and approved after following the procure laid down in sections 68c and 68d. In so far as the new scheme modifies the earlier schemes, the modifications could be made under section 68e. As the procedure laid down in Sections 68c and 68d were followed the conditions of Section 68e were satisfied. ls. 68e does not require that the new scheme should expressly say that it cancels or modifies the earlier schemes. On the promulgation of the new scheme the earlier schemes stand modified by implication pro-tanto. 7. A scheme to modify an existing scheme simpliciter is required by Rule 3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles (State transport Undertaking) Rules, 1960, to be in Form-IV. On the promulgation of the new scheme the earlier schemes stand modified by implication pro-tanto. 7. A scheme to modify an existing scheme simpliciter is required by Rule 3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles (State transport Undertaking) Rules, 1960, to be in Form-IV. The impugned scheme was in Form-II as it was in partial exclusion of the existing road transport service. Such a scheme could not be in Form-IV. The partial exclusion scheme was rightly proposed in Form-II and when approved it had the effect of modifying the earlier schemes. "it may also be pointed out that the aforesaid decision pertained to the modification of the approved scheme. The ratio of the aforesaid decision is applicable to the draft scheme also. Even in that event all that can happen is that it is the "1973 draft scheme" that has stood modified in so far as it related to Chitradurga-Davangere Scheme on the promulgation of the "1985 draft scheme". But "1985 draft scheme" on that basis cannot be construed as continuation of the "1973 draft scheme". In addition to this,"1985 draft scheme" is different from, and independent of the "1973 draft scheme' because it pertains to only one route though that route is one * of those which were included in the "1973 draft scheme". But in the preamble portion of the "1985 draft scheme" the words "should be run and operated exclusively by the State Transport undertaking" are used. Whereas in the preamble portion of the "1975 draft scheme," the words used are "should be run and operated by the State Transport undertaking". The word 'exclusively' is not used in the "1973 draft scheme". That would make all the difference. This and the other reasons stated above would make it clear that the "1983 draft scheme" cannot be considered to be the continuation of the ""1973 draft scheme. " It is also different from the "1973 draft scheme". The "1973 Draft Scheme" was questioned before the Supreme Court in K. T. Dharanendraiah's case (A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 1324) on the ground that there was inordinate delay in not publishing approved scheme. For the purpose of appreciating the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents it is necessary to reproduce the judgment of the Supreme Court which is as follows:" Special Leave granted. For the purpose of appreciating the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents it is necessary to reproduce the judgment of the Supreme Court which is as follows:" Special Leave granted. The appellant was an applicant for a temporary permit to ply a stage carriage on the route Chitradurga to Davangere and back under Section 68 (F) (1c) of the motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). It is not necessary to set out the entire history of this case. When the matter came to the High Court, the division Bench of the High Court set aside the orders passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court and " of the Tribunal and remanded the case to the regional Transport Authority to consider the question whether there was any need for additional services on the route in question. The necessity for applying under Section 68 (F) (1c) arose on account of a scheme published under Section 68c of the Act by the State Transport undertaking of the State of Karnataka in the year 1979 in respect of the said route. When this matter came before us, we called upon the State Transport undertaking to show cause why the draft scheme should not be quashed on account of the inordinate delay in not publishing the approved scheme under section 68d of the Act. Admittedly, the scheme has not yet been approved under section 68d of the Act. No satisfactory explanation has been given by the State transport Undertaking for not finalising the scheme till now as contemplated by law. We, therefore, following the decision of this Court in Shri Chand v Government of U. P. Lucknow and Others. (1985) 4 SCC 169 and Phool Chand Gupta v Regional transport Authority, Ujjain and others (1985) 4 SCC 190 quash the draft scheme. We, however, make it clear that the State transport Undertaking or any other person who has obtained permits under section 68f (1a) or Section 68f (1c) as the case may be, as a consequence of the publication of the draft scheme referred to above may continue to operate their services" till the expiry of 31-8-1987 provided they are plying their service today. We, however, reserve liberty to the state Transport Undertaking either to initiate a fresh scheme under Section 68c of the Act or to proceed with any other draft scheme which has already been published in respect of the route in question. Since we have quashed the scheme, the question of considering any application under Section 68f (1c) as a consequence of the publication of the draft scheme which is quashed by this order does not arise. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. "sri K. Balakrishna, learned counsel for the K. S. R. T. C. submits that as it was specifically brought to the notice of the supreme Court that the "1985 draft Scheme" of Chitradurga-Davangere was published under Section 68c of the Act in the karnataka Gazette dated 15-10-1985 and the supreme Court has saved the "1985 Draft scheme" in question and has permitted the k. S. R. T. C. to proceed with it; that what was quashed was the "1973 draft scheme" though it is referred to in the judgment as the scheme of the year 1979. It is further submitted that the effect and implication of the judgment of the Supreme Court is that the "1973 draft scheme" in so far it related to chitradurga - Davangere route, is or must be deemed to have been continued as otherwise there was no reason for the Supreme Court to permit the K. S. R. T. C. to continue the "1985 draft Scheme" pertaining to the very route published on 15- 10-1985. From the judgment of the Supreme Court it is clear that the "1973 draft scheme' of Davangere pocket was quashed. The reason for quashing was that since 1973 the State government was not able to finalise and publish the approved scheme under sub-section (3) of Section 68d of the Act. In other words, there was inordinate delay in not publishing the approved scheme. If allowing of the K. S. R. T. C. to continue the "1985 drafts scheme" - Chitradurga Davangere - amounted to continue the "1973 draft scheme", there was no reason to quash the scheme on the ground of delay because what applied to the route Chitradurga to davangere which was one of the routes included in that scheme also applied to other routes. The KSRTC was allowed to continue the "1985 draft scheme" of chitradurga-Davangere route because it was a new scheme of 1985. The KSRTC was allowed to continue the "1985 draft scheme" of chitradurga-Davangere route because it was a new scheme of 1985. If the KSRTC had not been specifically allowed to continue the chitradurga-Davangere "1985 draft scheme," there was every possibility of interpreting the judgment of the Supreme court that even Chitradurga-Davangere "1985 draft scheme"also stood quashed as it related to one of the routes included in "1973 draft scheme' To avoid this contingency or result, the supreme Court, permitted the ksrtc to continue and finalise the "1985 draft scheme' otherwise it would not have been permissible to continue the scheme because it pertained to the very route which was included in "1973 draft scheme" which was quashed. In other words the KSRTC was allowed to continue the "1985 draft scheme" though it pertained to one of the routes included in the "1973 draft scheme" because it was a separate scheme. If the supreme Court by allowing the KSRTC to continue "1985 Draft Scheme" intended to continue the "1973 draft scheme" in so far it related to Chitradurga-Davangere route, there was no reason for the Supreme Court to hold thus :- "since we have quashed the scheme, there was no question of considering any application under Section 68f (1c) as a consequence of the publication of the draft scheme which is quashed by this order does not arise. " The Supreme Court was concerned with the very Chitradurga- davangere route. In the event of recognising "1985 draft scheme" as the continuation of "1973 draft scheme", the applications under section 68f (1c) of the Act in respect of the route in question were required to be considered. But the Supreme court held that it was not necessary as the "1973 draft scheme" was quashed. Such being the position, it is not possible to understand the judgment of the Supreme court in the manner in which learned counsel for the KSRTC commends to the court. Hence the contention is rejected. For the reasons stated above, point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered as follows :1. "1985 Draft Scheme" relating to chitradurga - Davangere (on N. H. 4 road) published on 15-10-85 is different from and is not the continuation of the "1973 draft scheme" published on 9-8-1973. 2. Hence the contention is rejected. For the reasons stated above, point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered as follows :1. "1985 Draft Scheme" relating to chitradurga - Davangere (on N. H. 4 road) published on 15-10-85 is different from and is not the continuation of the "1973 draft scheme" published on 9-8-1973. 2. The effect of the judgment of the supreme Court is to recognise the "1985 draft scheme"as a new scheme independent of and unconnected with the "1973 Draft Scheme". POINT NO. 3: ( 8 ) THE provisions of Section 68f (1d) of the Act are as follows :"save as otherwise provided in sub-section (1a) or sub-section (1c), no permit shall be gra'nted or renewed during the period intervening between the date of publication, under Section 68c 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 Section 68c 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-section (3) of Section 68d. "it is already pointed out, and it is not disputed, that the permits in question were renewed prior to 15-10-85 and such renewals took place during the subsistence of "1973 draft scheme" pertaining to the very same route in question subject to the conditions laid down in the proviso to section 68f (1d) of the Act. However, this would not make any difference because the basis on which the conditions as per the proviso to Section 68f (1d) of the Act were imposed while renewing the permits in question itself ceased to exist as a result of quashing of the "1973 draft scheme" by the Supreme Court in K. T. Dharanendraiah's case. As a result thereof, those conditions also ceased to be operative and the permits became free from those conditions unaffected by the "1973 draft scheme" and Section. 68f (ID) of the act. As a result thereof, those conditions also ceased to be operative and the permits became free from those conditions unaffected by the "1973 draft scheme" and Section. 68f (ID) of the act. Therefore, the permits in question which have not been renewed during the subsistence of or after the Publication of the "1985 draft scheme" cannot be considered to have been renewed subject to the conditions laid down in the provisio to Section 68f (ID) of the Act. The renewals of the permits in question made prior to 15- 10-1985 have not yet expired even after the publication of the approved scheme on 23-9-1987. The proviso to Section 68f (ID) is attracted only when the permits are renewed on or after the publication of, and during the subsistence of the draft scheme. As already pointed out, the permit in question have nor been renewed during the aforesaid period. The proviso to Section 68f (ID) of the Act is not attracted. The permits in question cannot be held to have ceased to be effective on the publication of the approved scheme on 23-9-1987. However Sri Balakrishna, learned counsel for the K. S. R. T. C. has placed reliance on a decision of this court in w. P. NO. 120 to 158/1986 (R. K. THAMBAKE and ORS. V THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.) dated 17-10-1986. In that decision, no doubt the scope of Section 68f (ID) of the Act has been considered. But the said decision is not of any assistance to the respondents because in the instant case, as already pointed out, the permits in question have nor been renewed during the subsistence of the "1985 draft scheme". Therefore, the very conditions contained in Section 68f (ID) of the Act are not attracted. In the instant case, the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 68f of the Act are attracted. Those provisions are required to be applied in accordance with the S. T. U. Rules framed under Section 68-1 of the Act. For the purpose of enforcement of the approved scheme, Rules 10 to 12 14 and 15 of the S. T. U. Rules are required to be followed. Those provisions are required to be applied in accordance with the S. T. U. Rules framed under Section 68-1 of the Act. For the purpose of enforcement of the approved scheme, Rules 10 to 12 14 and 15 of the S. T. U. Rules are required to be followed. Rule 10 of the S. T. U Rules provides that the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall for the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme under sub-section (2) of Section 68f, publish in the official Gazette a Notification specifying the date, not being less than 15 days from the date of publication of such notification, before which representations may be submitted by the parties affected thereby and in which time, date and place at which, the representations so received will be considered. Rule II provides for the manner of making representations. Rule 12 deals with the manner of disposal of representation. Rule 14 provides for the manner of service of orders passed under sub- section (2) of section 68f of the Act. Rule 15 provides for the holders of cancelled permits to submit the statements in Form-N with the original part-B of the permit to the State Transport undertaking and a copy thereof to the State transport Authority or to the R. T. A concerned within 7 days from the date on which the cancellation or modification of the permits becomes effective. S. T. U. Rules are framed to safeguard the interest of the existing operators whose routes are not wholly covered by the notified routes and also intended to facilitate exercise of power by the Transport Authority under section 68f (2) of the Act. Thus the S. T. U. Rules intend not only to safeguard the interest of the existing operators but also ensure that the Transport Authority does not exercise its power under Section 68f (2) of the Act arbitrarily. Lastly it is also necessary to refer to the contention of Sri. M. Rangaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioners that there are alternative routes to reach Davangere. Similar contention is also urged on behalf of the other petitioners. It is not necessary to consider the same. Lastly it is also necessary to refer to the contention of Sri. M. Rangaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioners that there are alternative routes to reach Davangere. Similar contention is also urged on behalf of the other petitioners. It is not necessary to consider the same. It is open to the petitioners to raise these contentions before the State Transport Authority or the R. T. A. as the case may be in the representations they file under Rule II of the S. T. U. Rules. In that event, the concerned Transport authority is required to consider the same. Sri K. Balakrishna, learned counsel appearing for the K. S. R. T. C. also submits that in the proceedings initiated under sub-section (2) of Section 68f of the Act, the k. S. R. T. C. may also be given an opportunity to participate. There is no doubt that the k. S. R. T. C. is entitled to participate in that proceeding as the same relates to implementation of the approved scheme with which the K. S. R. T. C. is vitally concerned. For the reasons stated above, point No. 3 is answered in the negative. ( 9 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, these writ petitions are allowed in the following terms:1) The impugned notice produced an annexure-A to C' in W. P. No. 14722 to 14724/1987 ; Annexures-B to G' in w. P. NOS. 14834 to 14840/1987 ; and annexures-B and C in W. P. No. 14841 and 14842 of 1987, all dated 24-9-1987, issued by the secretary of the R. T. As. of Chitradurga are hereby quashed. 2) The State Transport Authority or the regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, are directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with section 68f (2) of the Act read with rules 10 to 12,14 and 15 of the S. T. U. Rules and initiate proceedings for implementation of the approved scheme in question under Section 68f (2) of the Act read with Rules 10 to 12, 14 and 15 of the S. T. U Rules within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order and complete the same as expeditiously as possible. ( 10 ) LET copies of this order be sent to the state Transport Authority and the R. T. A. as expediously as possible. ( 11 ) SRI. ( 10 ) LET copies of this order be sent to the state Transport Authority and the R. T. A. as expediously as possible. ( 11 ) SRI. P. R. Ramesh, learned High Court government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of Appearance on behalf of the respondents in six weeks. writ petitions dismissed --- *** --- .