JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - This bunch of writ petitions filed by quite a large number of operators who were or are plying stage carriages at Hardoi Unnao and Kanpur route raises the common question of right to get authorisation certificate under Section 5 (1) of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Special Provision) Act, 1976. Admittedly Lucknow Kanpur via Unnao is a nationalised route since the year 1952 and U.P. Government Roadways, now Road Transport Corporation buses are plying over the route. On or before 6-10-1972 sixty-two permanent stage carriage permits were in existence for Hardoi-Unnao route. Before that date 8 permit-holders of the said route moved application under Section 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for inclusion of the portion of route between Unnao and Kanpur in their permits. These 8 permit-holders were :- 1. Rajni Kant Chaturvedi. 2. Abdul Majid Khan. 3. Moazzam Khan. 4. Hari Ram Gupta. 5. Har Mohan Singh. 6. Jagdish Chand. 7. Srimati Chunni Devi Gupta. 8. M/s. Hindustan Transport Company, Unnao (holding 4 permits;. 2. On the application of the above mentioned 8 operators for 11 permits the Regional Transport Authority (for short R.T.A.) in its meeting dated 6-10-1972 granted extension for Unnao-Kanpur route temporarily. Subsequently the application moved by 47 other private operators who also applied for the same were rejected. Against the order passed by the R.T.A., the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short U.P.S.R.T.C.) preferred a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which was allowed and the order passed by the R.T.A. was set aside on the ground that extension on notified route between Unnao and Kanpur was impermissible. Those 8 permit holders preferred a writ petition against the order to ply the buses between Hardoi and Kanpur provided they do not pick-up and get down passengers on the notified portion of the route. The interim order continued up to 24-2-1978 as the permits were renewed at the interval of every three years. Obviously these renewals were in view of the interim order passed by this Court referred to above. On 31-12-1974 applications were made by the petitioners to Writ Petition No. 2971 of 1979, Raja Ram and others v. The Competent Authority, as well as by other persons for inclusion of the route between Unnao and Kanpur in their permits on permanent basis which were allowed. On 31-12-1974 applications were made by the petitioners to Writ Petition No. 2971 of 1979, Raja Ram and others v. The Competent Authority, as well as by other persons for inclusion of the route between Unnao and Kanpur in their permits on permanent basis which were allowed. The U.P.S.R.T.C. filed a revision against the said order which was allowed by the Tribunal. Against the said order the four petitioners above mentioned filed a writ petition in which an interim order was passed on 27-2-1975. This Court dismissed all the writ petitions including those preferred by the 11 operators referred to above. 3. Special leave petitions against the above order passed by this Court were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which vide order dated 29-10-1978 directed the petitioners to apply to the Competent Authority for Authorisation certificate under sub-section 5 (1) and (c) of U.P. Motor Vehicles Special Provision Act, 1976. The Competent Authority rejected all such applications on 17-11-1978 against which writ petitions were filed. Thereafter gradually more petitions were filed. This court granted interim orders in these petitions allowing the petitioners to operate on Unnao-Kanpur route on paying royalty to the Corporation as determined by the Competent Authority. The interim orders passed on various dates in different writ petitions came-up for consideration before this Court on 3-4-1981. The court modified the earlier order and directed that Competent Authority will act on interim orders passed by this Court only if on a reconsideration of the question of needs it comes to the conclusion that there was a need for service between Hardoi-Sandila and Kanpur via Unnao route and in the event it comes to the conclusion that there was no need, the interim order shall stand vacated. The questions raised in the main writ petition were referred to a larger Bench in view of conflicting Bench decision which is to be constituted afresh. 4. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court the Competent Authority after consideration of the matter vide order dated 19-9-1981 held that there was no direct need between Hardoi or Sandila and Kanpur via Unnao route. The result is that from 2-8-1981 there is no authorisation certificate with these operators which they got under the interim orders of the Court though unilaterally they have been sending drafts towards royalty to the Corporation for authorisation certificate. The result is that from 2-8-1981 there is no authorisation certificate with these operators which they got under the interim orders of the Court though unilaterally they have been sending drafts towards royalty to the Corporation for authorisation certificate. On 27-11-1981 the Secretary of the Competent Authority requested the Regional Transport Authority not to allow the petitioners to ply on this route. Against the said letter two writ petitions were filed and this Court stayed the operations of said letter dated 27-11-1981 referred to above. The Supreme Court vide order dated 24th February, 1984 dismissed the writ petition filed by the first set which included Hindustan Transport Company which was holding 4 permits as has been mentioned above. In the said case reported in Hindustan Transport Company and others v. State of U.P. and others AIR 1984 S.C. 953 the Court held that Section 5 of U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provision) Act, 1976 enables the competent authority to grant authorisation to the existing transport operators holding permit over the whole or part of notified route on the date of the notification. The petitioners did not hold permits on the portion of the nationalised sector on the date of the notification for nationalisation, as such they are not entitled to grant of authorisation under Section 5. In the said decision it was held that only those who held permits in respect of portion of a nationalised sector on the date of notification for nationalization were entitled to grant of authorisation. Section 1 (3) of this Act (22 of 1976) states that it shall apply to schemes approved or notified under Chapter IV of Motor Vehicles Act and to issue permits under the principal Act before commencement of this Act. The matter came up for consideration before 5 Judges Bench of Han'ble Supreme Court in Adarsh Travels Bus Service and another v. State of U. P., (1985) 4 SCC 557 in view of conflicting decisions of the Court. The court agreed with the view taken in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal AIR 1974 S.C. 1940 . The court agreed with the view taken in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal AIR 1974 S.C. 1940 . It was held that when a Schedule is published in respect of a notified route, a private operator having valid permit for different routes cannot operate stage carriage over that part of his route which overlaps the notified route even without picking up or dropping passengers, on the over-lapping part if the scheme does not permit the same. A route means not only the national line but also the actual road over which the motor vehicles run. 5. Similar question came up for consideration again in Sumer Chand Sharma and another v. State of U.P. and another AIR 1986 S.C. 1112 and other connected writ petitions wherein it was held" they complained that on the basis of the observations of this court in Hindustan Transport ( supra ) their applications for renewal of their authorisations had been wrongly rejected on the ground that they did not possess permits on the dates of the Nationalisation Notifications. We do not see any force in the submission of the learned counsel. As pointed out by us, on the repeal of Act 9 of 1985 it was no longer possible for the transport authorities to permit the private operators to ply their stage carriages over the common sectors, in the case of areas and routes which were nationalised to the complete exclusion 'of private operators'. If by reason of the authorised and unlawful practice which had grown up in Uttar Pradesh, private operators had been allowed to ply vehicles over common sectors, despite statutory prohibition, that would surely not entitle the operators to obtain authorisation under Section 5 of the 1976 Act. Whatever doubts there might have been earlier, it is now settled by the decision of Constitution Bench in Adarsh Travels v. State of U.P., (1985) 4 SCC 557 that where a route is nationalised under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act to the total exclusion of private operators, a private operator with a permit ply a stage carriage over another route which has a common overlapping sector with the nationalised route cannot be permitted to apply his vehicle over that part of the overlapping common sector, even if he did not pick up or set down passengers on that part of the route. The law as declared by the court in Adarsh Travels v. State of U.P., ( supra ) must be considered to have always been the law under the Motor Vehicles Act. The plying of stage carriage by the private operators before the commencement of 1976 Act pursuant to the alleged practice which has grown up in Uttar Pradesh or under interim orders of a court must be considered to be unauthorised so as to disentitle the private operator from seeking the benefit of Section 5 of Uttar Pradesh Act 27 of 1975. The writ petitions and special leave petitions are, therefore, dismissed". The case again reiterated the view taken in Adarsh Travels case, ( supra ) that private operators cannot be permitted to ply his vehicle over the common overlapping sector with a nationalisd route. The operators of either of the two sets viz., some of the petitioners to writ petition and opposite parties are plying their buses upto Kanpur as permits were granted under interim order of the Court some of which were renewed in 1984. 6. The contention on behalf of all such operators was that they were holding permits granted to them may be under the interim orders of this Court, and as they were holders of permits just before the date of commencement of U.P. Act no. 26 of 1976 that is U.P. Motor Vehicles Special Provisions Act, 1976, they are entitled to authorisation certificates. The interim order passed by the Court would not nullify the orders under challenge in the writ petitions and it would mean that such order stood set aside. The interim order suspends wholly or partly the operation of the orders under challenge as the case may be or provides for some direction for the time being causing some variation and modification in the enforcement of such orders. A permit within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act at best confers a temporary permission to ply the vehicle even by issuing a permit which obviously will be subject to the final orders passed by the court. It would not confer any right to hold permit or dispense with the legal requirement regarding grant of permit or its extension. The same could by itself not give right to such holder for grant of regular permit or authorisation certificate. 7. It would not confer any right to hold permit or dispense with the legal requirement regarding grant of permit or its extension. The same could by itself not give right to such holder for grant of regular permit or authorisation certificate. 7. In Sumer Chand's case ( supra ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the plying of vehicle under interim orders of the Court would be unauthorised and would disentitle the person concerned from seeking benefits of Section 5 of the Act. Thus no right accrued on the basis of interim orders and the same could not by-pass the statutory provisions of its requirement and if grant of permit or certificate is not in accordance with the provisions of statute, it would be no grant in the eyes of law. The permit so held or authorisation certificate which is to be deemed to be a permit under Motor Vehicles Act will not be a permit within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the said Act when the Motor Vehicles (Special Provision) Act came into force on July 18, 1981, the date on which Unnao-Kanpur via Nari route was declared to be notified route. 8. It was also contended that after construction of Jajmau bridge a new scheme under Section 68-C was published on 8th December, 1979 notifying Unnao Kanpur via Nari route and after disposal of objection was finally published under Section 68-D on 11th June, 1981. After notification of this route the plying of heavy vehicle on the old route v/z., Unnao-Kanpur via Magarwara was stopped. The construction of this new route is only a diversion and heavy vehicles have been diverted on this route. In view of decision in Writ Petition Nos. 4541 of 1976 and 778 of 1976 i.e., Janta Transport Company v. Regional Transport Authority Meerut the new route between Unnao and Kanpur would only be a diversion. The construction of this new route is only a diversion and heavy vehicles have been diverted on this route. In view of decision in Writ Petition Nos. 4541 of 1976 and 778 of 1976 i.e., Janta Transport Company v. Regional Transport Authority Meerut the new route between Unnao and Kanpur would only be a diversion. In the said case it was observed that in case for any reason a part of road is replaced by a new patch which so far as vehicular traffic is concerned completely replaces part of the old road in the sense that it becomes the old existing road on which the vehicular traffic may pass, it cannot for a moment be argued that the old route has ceased to exist and there has come into existence a new route for which fresh proceedings under the 1955 Act (now replaced by Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) are necessary. Several alignments may be necessitated on each road every year and if for the sake of such alignment only, which arc made to make the road more useful for vehicular traffic, fresh notices are necessary for publicity and finalising the scheme and to make it a notified route again it would be almost impossible to keep any route a legally notified route for any appreciable length of time. Certainly this could not be the intention of the legislature. The said view was approved by another Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 754 of 1966 and Writ Petition No. 142 of 1967 decided on 27-2-1970. There appears to be no reason to disagree with the said view. The contention raised on behalf of some of the operators that the notification dated 18th July, 1981, read with Section 68-E of the Motor Vehicles Act which provides for cancellation or modification of scheme would mean that there are now two notifications with regard to two district routes fails as this diversion which was but to be notified would not be a district route. After publication of notification dated 18th July, 1981 regarding the route Unnao-Kanpur via Nari, the plying of private vehicles over this nationalised route is excluded altogether. After publication of notification dated 18th July, 1981 regarding the route Unnao-Kanpur via Nari, the plying of private vehicles over this nationalised route is excluded altogether. Even if authorisation certificate was granted to some operators under the interim orders passed by this Court and they were allowed to ply their vehicles on this by-pass though according to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation it was only for old route viz. via Magarwara and extension granted in the year 19/4 was for that route. The same would not confer any right on them to ply their vehicles on the ground that on 18th July, 1981 their vehicles never held any permit on Unnao-Kanpur via Nari route. The certificates so granted, the grant of which otherwise was made without any adjudication of determination of its permissibility at this stage, were not in accordance with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act or the U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 which provides for certain procedure and the same would not confer any right or status and could not be taken to be starting point for any claim. In 1981 the Competent Authority had already recorded a finding that there was no need for additional vehicle on Unnao-Kanpur route. 9. Lastly it was also contended that the Competent Authority in November, 1986, resolved that private operators may be permitted to ply the vehicles on this route up to a distance of 24 kms. by paying administrative, operational and contract charges to the Corporation and permission has been sought from the Governor to amend the Act. In support of this argument an affidavit was also filed after close of arguments in these petitions. Even if that be so, it will not change the position so long as the Act is not amended. Both the sets of petitioners are not entitled to any benefit of the resolution referred to above. 10. The orders refusing to grant authorisation certificates or extension of permits are quite valid and do not call for any interference. The permits and certificates granted in view of interim order and decision of the Court would cease to be legal and effective. 11. Writ Petition Nos. 10. The orders refusing to grant authorisation certificates or extension of permits are quite valid and do not call for any interference. The permits and certificates granted in view of interim order and decision of the Court would cease to be legal and effective. 11. Writ Petition Nos. 2944 of 1986, 2971 of 1979, 3622 of 1979, 147 of 1980, 2673 of 1980, 6110 of 1980, 3293 of 1980, 4026 of 1986, 1442 of 1982, 5448 of 1982, 5920 of 1982, 2418 of 1982, 10 of 1982, 265 of 1980, 1340 of 1980 and 6111 of 1981 in which prayer for quashing of the orders rejecting prayer for grant of authorisation certificate and a further prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to allow them to ply their vehicles has been made are dismissed. Out of these writ petitions in Writ Petitions Nos. 2971 of 1979, 147 of 1980, 2673 of 1980, 265 of 1980 and 1340 of 1980 some of the operators who have filed the writ petition are petitioners in more than one writ petition and the competent authority considered also the question of adequacy of vehicles on the route in question. 12. No order as to costs.