SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) IN these two petitions under Articles 2,26 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the notice dated 24-9-1987 bearing No. P. St. P. 4/71-72 and also the similar Notice dated 24-9-1987 bearing no. P. St. P. 179/58-59 produced as annexure-A in writ petition 14904/1987 and annexure-B in writ petition No. 14836/1987 respectively. ( 2 ) THE petitioner in writ petition no. 14904/87 holds a stage carriage permit no. 4/71-72 on the route between nonavinakere and Davanagere and back via hongelakshmi Kshethra, Jayapura, Tiptur, mathighatta, Yemmegere, Panchanahalli, hosadurga, Shivaganga, Holalkere, chickajajur, Anagodu with one round trip per day by two vehicles, each vehicle to perform one single trip per day. The permit was valid upto 21-6-1986. It was renewed on 30th September, 1986 for a period of 5 years. The renewal was made subject to the proviso to Section 68f (1d) of the Motor Vehicles act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). ( 3 ) THE petitioner in writ petition no. 14836/1987 holds a stage carriage permit bearing No. P. St. P. 179/58-59 OH the route hosadurga to Davanagere and back via janakal, Shivaganga, Holalkere, Anagodu and back with one round trip. The permit was valid upto 31. 3. 1985. The application for renewal was filed by the petitioner well in time as required by Section 58 of the Act. This application was allowed by the R. T. A. Tumkur on 20th November, 1985, renewing the permit for a period of 5 years subject to the proviso to section 68f (1d) of the Act. ( 4 ) IN the meanwhile, the Karnataka State road Transport Corporation, the State transport Undertaking published a draft scheme known as 'chitradurga to davanagere Scheme' under Section 68-C of the Act on 15-10-1985. The draft scheme has also been approved and the approved scheme has been published under Section 68d (3) of the Act on 23-9-1987. Thus from that date il has become an approved scheme and also the route between Chitradurga and davanagere (on N. H. 4 Road) has become 'notified Route". The draft scheme has also been approved and the approved scheme has been published under Section 68d (3) of the Act on 23-9-1987. Thus from that date il has become an approved scheme and also the route between Chitradurga and davanagere (on N. H. 4 Road) has become 'notified Route". ( 5 ) CONSEQUENT upon the Chitradurga to davanagere route becoming a Notified route, the respondent has issued the impugned notices to the petitioners stating that as the permits were renewed during the subsistence of the draft scheme subject to the proviso to Section 68f (1d) of the Act, the permits have ceased to be operative in respect of the portions of the routes which are over-lapping the notified route namely the Chitradurga to Davanagere. ( 6 ) IT is the validity of these notices that is challenged in these petitions. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the contentions urged on both the sides, the following points arise for consideration: i) Whether the impugned notices are valid in law? ii) Whether this is a case in which interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is called for? point NO. 1: ( 8 ) THE facts stated above are not in dispute. Il is also not in dispute that the routes for which the petitioners are holding the permits in question are not entirely covered by he notified route. Only thet portions of the routes are covered by the notified route. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that as the entire extent of the routes for which the permits are held by them are not covered by the notified route and as Rules 10 to 14 of the State Transport undertaking (Karnataka) Rules, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the 'stu Rules'), are not followed, the impugned notices are invalid. On the contrary it is contended by sri K. Balakrishna, learned counsel appearing for the K. S. R. T. C. that as the permits were renewed subject to the proviso to Section 68f (1d) of the Act, on the publication of the approved scheme i. e. , 23-9-87 the permits ceased to be operative. On the contrary it is contended by sri K. Balakrishna, learned counsel appearing for the K. S. R. T. C. that as the permits were renewed subject to the proviso to Section 68f (1d) of the Act, on the publication of the approved scheme i. e. , 23-9-87 the permits ceased to be operative. As far as the permit held by the petitioner in writ petition No. 14836/1987 is concerned, it is further contended by learned counsel for k. S. R. T. C. that as it has been renewed after the publication of and during the subsistence of the draft scheme on 20th November,1985, it is also similar to Writ Petition No. 14904/87. This contention of learned counsel for the k. S. R. T. C. is resisted by learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the permit must be deemed to have been renewed even prior to the publication of the scheme under Section 68c of the Act because the renewal takes effect from the date of the expiry of the permit which took place on 1-4-1985. ( 9 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the K. S. R. T. C. that as the permits have been renewed during the subsistence of the draft scheme and subject to the proviso of section 68f (1d) of the Act, it is not necessary to follow the procedure provided in Rules 10 to 14 of the S. T. U. Rules, cannot be accepted. It is already pointed and it is not in dispute in these cases that the routes in respect of which the permits are held by the petitioners are not completely covered by the nolified route. Only the portions of the routes as mentioned in the impugned notices, are covered by the notified route. It is already pointed and it is not in dispute in these cases that the routes in respect of which the permits are held by the petitioners are not completely covered by the nolified route. Only the portions of the routes as mentioned in the impugned notices, are covered by the notified route. Section 68f (ID) of the Act reads thus :-"save as otherwise provided in sub-section (la) or Sub- section (lc), no permit shall he granted 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. "from the wordings contained in section 68f (1d) and aiso the proviso thereto it is cli'. ar that the provisions thereto operate only in respect of the route or the area which is covered by the scheme. This is made clear from the following words. "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". These words clearly indicate that it is only that portion of the route or the area which is covered by the scheme the permit in respect of that portion ineffective. The provision thereto also is to the same effect in as much as it specifically states that:"that 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. "thus Section 68f (1d) covers and regulates grant and renewal of permit during the period intervening from the publication of any scheme under Section 68c till the date of publication of the approved scheme in relation to an area or route or portion thereof covered by the scheme. "thus Section 68f (1d) covers and regulates grant and renewal of permit during the period intervening from the publication of any scheme under Section 68c till the date of publication of the approved scheme in relation to an area or route or portion thereof covered by the scheme. It is in respect of such area, route or portion of the route covered by the scheme if a permit granted earlier expires and is renewed during the aforesaid period, it ceases to be effective on the date of publication of the approved scheme. Therefore, it is clear that a permit which relates to the route which is not wholly covered by the notified route or area as (he case may be but only a portion of the route is covered, and it is renewed during the aforesaid period, it does not ce. ase to be operative in its entirety but only to the extent the route is covered by the notified route or area as the case may be. That being the position no assistance can be derived from the decision in W. P. . Nos. 120 to 158/1986 (Rachappa Kotreppa and others v government of Karnataka and others) dated 17th October, 1986 because the said decision relates to the routes which are completely covered by the notified routes. Similarly a decision of the High Court of Allahabad in brij Bahadur Lal v The State Transport appellate Tribunal and others (AIR 1973 allahabad 491) is also of no assistance to the k. S. R. T. C. because it is not clear from the said decision as to whether any portion of the route held by the private operator was outside the notified route. The proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid two decisions is applicable to a case where the route pertaining to a permit held by a private operator is completely covered by the notified route. In the instant case as it is already pointed out it is only the portions of the routes in question which are covered by the notified route not the entire extent of the routes. That being so, it is not possible to hold that the entire permit has become inoperative. ( 10 ) THE contention of Sri. Balakrishna learned Counsel for the KSRTC that the permit of the petitioner in writ petition no. That being so, it is not possible to hold that the entire permit has become inoperative. ( 10 ) THE contention of Sri. Balakrishna learned Counsel for the KSRTC that the permit of the petitioner in writ petition no. 14836/87 has been renewed on the 20th of november, 1985, therefore it must also fall in line with the permit held by the petitioner in writ petition No. 14904/87 because that permit also has been renewed during the subsistence of the draft scheme. This contention over-looks a positive provision contained in Sub- section (4) of section 58 of the Act which specifically provides that 'where a permit has been renewed under section 58 after the expiry of the period thereof such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a temporary permit has been granted under clause (d) of Section 62 of the act and where a temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid in respect of such temporary permit shall be refunded. The effect of Sub-section (4) of Section 58 of the act is to ensure continuity of operation of the permit irrespective of whether the permit is rencwed before it expires or on a date subsequent thereto as per Section 58 (l)of the Act. An application for renewal is required to be made within 120 days before the date of expiry of the permit. Normally the transport authority is expected to consider and decide the application before (he permit expires; but some time it may so happen that ii may not be possible for the transport authority to consider the application and decide it before the expiry of the period of permit. To meet such a situation Sub-section (4) of Section 58 of the act gives effect to the renewal from the date of the expiry. In the absence of such a provision it would not have been possible for renewing the permit on the expiry of the period of permit because what can be renewed is the one which is in existence not the one which has already expired. Therefore to meet such a situation a deeming provision is provided under Sub-sec (4) of section 58 of the Act. Whenever a deeming provision is provided by a statute it should be given full effect to in the context it is provided. Therefore to meet such a situation a deeming provision is provided under Sub-sec (4) of section 58 of the Act. Whenever a deeming provision is provided by a statute it should be given full effect to in the context it is provided. The context in which the deeming provision in question is provided is to ensure the continuity of the permit and therefore irrespective of the fact that the renewal is made after the expiry of the period of the permit it must be held to take effect from the date the permit expired. ( 11 ) TO overcome this difficulty in the contention advanced Sri. K. Balakrishna, learned counsel for the Corporation has placed reliance on Section 68b of the Act and contended that since the provisions contained in Chapter IVA of the Act prevail over a provision contained in Chapter IV of the Act, the deeming provision contained in section 58 which is found in Chapter IV of the Act cannot have the over-riding effect on chapter IVA. Therefore, the permit which is renewed on 20th November, 1985 and during subsistence of the draft scheme must be governed by Section 68d of the Act as the provisions contained in Chapter IVA of the act prevail over the provisions contained in chapter IV of the Act notwithstanding any thing inconsistent there with contained in chapter IV. The renewal of the permit cannot be considered to be inconsistent with the provisions contained in Chapter IVA of the Act because Chapter IVA also provides for renewal of the permits. However, certain restrictions are placed on the permits which are renewed during the subsistence of the draft scheme. But the fact remains that the provisions relating to renewal of the permits as contained in Section 58 of the Act cannot be considered to be inconsistent with the provisions contained in Chapter IVA of the act. That being so it is not possible to hold in a case like this that Sub-section (4) of section 58 of the Act has no operation. Therefore it follows that the permit concerned in Writ Petition No. 14836 of 1987 must be held to have been renewed with effect from 1-4-1985. Consequently, it follows that for all purposes the permit was renewed much earlier to the publication of the Draft Scheme which was published on 1. 5- 10-1985. Therefore it follows that the permit concerned in Writ Petition No. 14836 of 1987 must be held to have been renewed with effect from 1-4-1985. Consequently, it follows that for all purposes the permit was renewed much earlier to the publication of the Draft Scheme which was published on 1. 5- 10-1985. Hence, it is not affected by section 68f (1d) of the Act. ( 12 ) IT is alternatively contended by Sri. K. Balakrishna that the permits have been ceased to be operative at least in respect of the over-lapping portions and the RTA has passed the resolution by circulation on 24-9-1987 to render ineffective the permits in so far they over-lap the notified route. It is submitted that it is not necessary to follow the procedure laid down in Rules 10 to 14 of the STU Rules. It is already pointed out that the entire permit does not become inoperative. It is only that portion of the permit which relates to the portion which over-laps the notified route, that becomes inoperative in Sub section (2) of Section 68f of the Act provides for giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of the notified area or notified route. The State Transport authority or the Regional Transport authority as the case may be, is empowered to give effect to the approved scheme and in respect of the notified area or notified route. As to how that approved scheme in respect of the notified area or notified route should be given effect to has been provided in clauses (a) to (c) of that Sub section. In what manner the jurisdiction should be exercised by the STA or the RTA as the case may be, the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 681 of the Act have framed STU Rules 10 to 14 providing a procedure to be followed in the matter and admittedly the procedure laid down in STU rules 10 to 14 has not been followed. There is no publication of the notification in the official Gazette specifying the date, not beingiess than 15 days from the date of publication of such notification before which representation may be submitted by the parties affected thereby and in which time, date and place at which representations so received will be considered. There is no publication of the notification in the official Gazette specifying the date, not beingiess than 15 days from the date of publication of such notification before which representation may be submitted by the parties affected thereby and in which time, date and place at which representations so received will be considered. In the absence of such a notification in the official Gazette and determining the matter as per STU rules 11 and 12 and passing the orders in the manner provided under Rule 14 of the STU rules the R. T. A. or the S. T. A. as the case may be cannot straight away issue the notices in the manner it is done now. Therefore the impugned notices are invalid in law. Point no. l is answered accordingly. POINT NO. 2 12. When it is held that the impugned notices are invalid in law it necessarily follows that the same cannot at all be sustained. In this regard it is submitted that the ultimate result will be the same; therefore no purpose is served by quashing the notices. It is not possible to accept this contention. When the law prescribes a particular procedure and when it is incumbent upon the authority to follow the procedure prescribed by law and without following that procedure the authority purports to act, such an act of the authority cannot at all be sustained. It is not only the result that is material but the manner of exercising jurisdiction is also material for the sustenance of Rule of law. In fact, certiorari lies not only against the decision, but against the decision making process also. Therefore it is not possible to accept the contention of sri. K. Balakrishna. Accordingly, point No. 2 is answered in the affirmative and against the respondents. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons stated above these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned notices bearing No. P. St. P. No. 4/71-72 dated 24-9-1987 and bearing No. P. St. P. 179/58-59 dated 24/9/87 issued by the Secretary R. T. A. Chitradurga, Annexures 'a' and 'b' respectively, are hereby quashed. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons stated above these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned notices bearing No. P. St. P. No. 4/71-72 dated 24-9-1987 and bearing No. P. St. P. 179/58-59 dated 24/9/87 issued by the Secretary R. T. A. Chitradurga, Annexures 'a' and 'b' respectively, are hereby quashed. It is now open to the R. T. A. to proceed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sub- section (2) of Section 68f of the Act and Rules 10 to 14 of the STU Rules, and the observations made in this order and to initiate the proceedings within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the order and complete the same within 30 days from the date of publication of the notification in the official gazette as per Rule 10 of the STU Rules. ( 14 ) SRI. P. R. Ramesh, learned High court Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance on behalf of respondent-1 in W. P. . 14904/87 and for respondent-1 and Respondent- 2 in w. P. . 14836/1987 within four weeks from today. Writ Petitions allowed. --- *** --- .