K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) IN these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the Karnataka state Transport Authority, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the K S T. A.), from considering the applications of the petitioners at the meeting to be held on 23rd, 24th and 25th July, 1981 or at any subsequent meeting until the State Government renders its decision on the proposed modification of the Kolar Pocket scheme. ( 2 ) THE contentions of the petitioners are that the State Government has in exercise of its power under sub-section (2) of Section 68e of the Motor Vehicles act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), has proposed to modify the Kolar pocket Scheme by the Notification dated 25-2-1980; that if the notification as proposed is approved and published as per sub-section (3) of Section 68d of the act, the applications filed by the petitioners will have to be considered on merits and therefore, it is contended that it is necessary to postpone consideration of the applications filed by the petitioners; that as the KSTA is proceeding with the applications, it is necessary to prohibit the KSTA from considering the applications. It appears to me that these contentions are devoid of merit. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute and it cannot at all be disputed that the approved scheme of Kolar Pocket is in operation and will continue to be in operation unti! it is modified. Every transport authority including the KSTA is bound to enforce the Scheme. Section 68ff of the Act specifically prohibits them by legislative injunction that they shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. Therefore if any application is filed for grant of permit in respect of the notified route included in the approved scheme of Kolar Pocket, the transport Authority is bound io consider such application in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. It is a settled position of law that the scheme published under Section 68d (3) of the Act is law. While exercising jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme, the Transport Authority will be only enforcing the law and will be doing nothing but discharging the obligation imposed by the Act. It is a settled position of law that the scheme published under Section 68d (3) of the Act is law. While exercising jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme, the Transport Authority will be only enforcing the law and will be doing nothing but discharging the obligation imposed by the Act. The fact that there is a proposal to modify the scheme will neither affect the scheme nor the Jurisdiction of the Transport Authority. Until the scheme is modified it is the statutory duty of the Transport Authority to enforce and give effect to the scheme. In doing so, it will not be usurping the jurisdiction not vested in it. ( 4 ) WRIT of Prohibition is one of the prerogative writs which this Court issues in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for the purpose of preventing the inferior courts and also the Tribunals and all other statutory authorities exercising judicial and quasi-judicial powers from exceeding the limits of their legitimate sphere of action or in other words from usurping the jurisdiction rot vested in them. In short, the writ of prohibition is issued to compel them to keep within the limits of their jurisdiction and exercise their jurisdiction in accordance with law so as to ensure full justice to all concerned. It is normally issued in a case where the defect of jurisdiction is parent or where the law which gives jurisdiction to the Tribunal or any other authority or inferior court is itself unconstitutional or ultra vires or where the fundamental right is infringed. It is never issued to prevent an inferior court or tribunal or any other authority from exercising its legitimate jurisdiction. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, as it is already pointed out, the approved scheme of Kolar Pocket is in operation and its validity is beyond reproach. The mere fact that the State Government has issued a Notification proposing to modify the scheme will not take away or affect the validity and enforceability of the scheme. Therefore Transport Authorities functioning under the Act who are legally duty- bound to act in accordance with the scheme cannot be prevented from exercising their jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Scheme. Therefore Transport Authorities functioning under the Act who are legally duty- bound to act in accordance with the scheme cannot be prevented from exercising their jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Scheme. Therefore, the KSTA is legally bound to consider the applications filed by the petitioners for grant of permits in terms of the Scheme if the applications relate to the routes which are notified routes having been included in the approved scheme of Kolar Pocket. In the event the scheme is modified, and the modified scheme enables the petitioners to obtain the permits, it will still be open to the petitioners to make fresh applications irrespective of the rejection of the applications now filed by them having regard to the provisions contained in the approved scheme in question. It is not possible to hold that the KSTA will be acting without jurisdiction or will be attempting to usurp the jurisdiction if it considers the applications filed by the petitioners for grant of permits as per the provisions of the Act and the approved scheme in question. Hence I do not see any merit in these petitions, as such the petitions are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, it is made clear that this order and the rejection of the applications filed by the petitioners, in case the same are rejected before the scheme is modified, shall not be construed as coming in the way of the petitioners to make fresh applications for grant of permits pursuant to the notified scheme as modified. --- *** --- .