JUDGMENT K.J. Shetty, C.J. - The petitioners in these writ petitions held permits to ply stage carriages over the route Saharanpur Muzaffarnagar. They sought renewal of those permits. The Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun after considering their applicant ions renewed the permits valid up to 1989 or up to the finalisation of a scheme the draft of which has been published by them. The petitioners were, however, directed to obtain authorisation from the Competent Authority under U. P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 (U. P. Act No. 27 of 1976). This condition was imposed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in writ petition No. 255 of 1976 dated April 24, 1986. The said decision has since been reported in 1986 All U 597 : ( AIR 1986 SC 1112 ), (Sumer Chand Sharma v. State of U. P.). 2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid condition the petitioners have approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no necessity to obtain authorisation from the Competent Authority since they are the existing operators on the date of the draft scheme and they are entitled to renewal of permits under S. 68-F(l-D) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. In order to appreciate this contention, it will be necessary to set out a few more facts. 5. A draft scheme for nationalisation of the route in question along with other routes has been published by Notification dated 13-2-86. The route consists of mainly three sectors. The first sector is from Saharanpur to Gagelheri covering a distance of 10 kms.The second sector is from Gagelheri to Ramenheri extending about 56 kms. The third sector stretches from Bamenheri to Muzaffarnagar which is hardly 4 kms. 6. The first sector forms part of the earlier nationalised route from Saharanpur-Hardwar. The third sector also forms part of another nationalised route called Muzaffarnagar Barla Basera. It is not in dispute that the earlier two schemes under which these two routes have been nationalised were to the total exclusion of the private operators. Consequently private operators unless they were existing operators before nationalisation of those routes could not get renewal of their permits. That question has been concluded by the decisions of the Supreme Court (i) Hindustan Transport Co. Consequently private operators unless they were existing operators before nationalisation of those routes could not get renewal of their permits. That question has been concluded by the decisions of the Supreme Court (i) Hindustan Transport Co. v. State of U. P., AIR 1984 SC 953 , and (ii) Sumer Chand Sharma v. State of U. P. 1986 All U 597: ( AIR 1986 SC 1112 ). 7. Since the petitioners did not have permits on those routes before nationalisation of routes, they have no right to obtain renewal of permits in respect of the portions overlapping the notified routes. The counsel for the petitioners indeed very fairly submitted that in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court the petitioners cannot obtain those renewals. But the counsel urged that the decisions of the Supreme Court are not applicable to the facts of the present case since applications of the petitioners for renewal of permits fall guider S. 68-F( 1-D) of the Act. Section 68-F(l-D) of the Act reads : "68-F(l-D) : Save as otherwise provided in sub-s.( 1-A) or sub-s. (1-C). No permit shall be granted or renewed during the period intervening between the date of publication, under S. 68-C of any scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme, in favour of any person or 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 S. 68-C 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-s. (3) of S. 68-D." 8. The counsel relied on the above proviso and urged that since there is a draft scheme published covering the route in question the petitioners are entitled to renewal of their permits to be valid up to the approval of the scheme. It was also submitted that the moment the draft scheme has been published, the. earlier approved two schemes shall stand modified and there is, therefore, no impediment for the Regional Transport Authority to renew the permit unconditionally on the entire route Saharanpur Muzaffarnagar. It was also submitted that the moment the draft scheme has been published, the. earlier approved two schemes shall stand modified and there is, therefore, no impediment for the Regional Transport Authority to renew the permit unconditionally on the entire route Saharanpur Muzaffarnagar. In support of this contention, the counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Standard Motor Union Private Ltd. v. State of Kerala, AIR 1969 SC 273 and in particular, the following portion in para. 6 of the judgment. "............The new scheme has been proposed and approved after following the procedure laid down in Sections 68-C and 68-D. In so far as the new scheme modified the earlier schemes, the modifications could be made under S. 68-C. As the procedure laid down in Sections 68-C and 68-D were followed, the conditions of 'S. 68-E were satisfied. Section 68-E 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." 9. We gave our anxious consideration to the matter but we do not think that the decision of the Supreme Court will be of any assistance to the case on hand. The decision of the Supreme Court was concerned with the approved scheme. When one new scheme is approved and published, the earlier scheme containing same provisions shall stand modified by implication pro tanto. That is the principle laid down by the Supreme Court. It in our opinion, cannot be extended to the publication of a draft scheme. A draft scheme cannot have the legal effect of modifying an approved scheme. 10. In the result, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed. In the circumstances, however, we make no order as to costs.