K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) 1. As these two writ petitions can be disposed of on a short point, they are heard for final disposal ( 2 ) THE facts necessary for the purpose of deciding the validity of the relief sought for in these writ petitions are not at all in dispute. ( 3 ) IN W. P. No. 4415/1989, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 10-3-1989 passed by the 1 st respondent in Appeal No. URA 218/1988 Annexure-C. In W. P No. 4322/1989, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 10-3-1989 passed by the 1st Respondent in URA 240/1988. ( 4 ) IN fact the 1st respondent heard both the appeals together and passed a common order. The petitioner in W. P. No. 4415/1989 was granted a stage carriage permit on the route Chintamani to Karkoor cross via Chelur, Peddareddipalli, and pathapalya to operate one round trip on 4-3-1985 by the 2nd respondent. Similarly the petitioner in W. P. No. 4322/1989 was granted a stage carriage permit on 4- 3-1985 on the route Karkoor Cross to chintamani and back to perform one round trip. There were appeals filed by the objectors challenging the aforesaid glant of permits. Those appeals were allowed and the permits were set aside and the case was remitted to the 2nd respondent. The order of the first respondent remitting the matter for fresh consideration was challenged before this court in W. Ps. 14629 and 14630/87 which came to be decided on 10-12-1987. A direction was issued by this Court to consider the applications afresh and in accordance with law and on the basis of the merits taking into consideration the provisions of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1939 and Rule 104-A of the Motor vehicles Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' and the -Rules' respectively ). ( 5 ) THEREAFTER the 2nd respondent granted stage carriage permits to the petitioners on 3-3-1988 and on the same day the 3rd respondent (Karnataka State Road transport Corporation) published a draft scheme under Section 68c of the Act known as 'kolar Draft Scheme' covering the routes in question. On the basis of the draft scheme, the K. S. T. A. T. has now set aside the permits. On the basis of the draft scheme, the K. S. T. A. T. has now set aside the permits. ( 6 ) THE point for consideration is as to what is the effect of the Notification published in the Karnataka Gazette of 3-3-1988 publishing the Draft Scheme known as 'kolar Draft Scheme' covering the routes in question. ( 7 ) IF in law, the notification published on 3-3-1988 under Section 68c of the Act takes effect anterior in point of time to the grant of permits in question, the permits granted to the petitioners will be impermissible, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 68f (1d) of the Act. It is not the case of the petitioners that the Notification published on 3-3-1988 provides in express terms that it will operate from a particular point of time and that time is later than the time at which the permits in question were granted to the petitioners. In the absence of such express words, contained in the notification as to the time of commencement of the Notification, it shall have to be construed as coming into operation immediately on the expiration of the day preceding to its commencement, Even in the case of commencement of the operation of the statutory Notifications, the law embodied in sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Mysore General Clauses Act can be applied even though the said section deals with coming into operation of enactments. Similar provisions are contained in S. 5 (3) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 therefore, it follows that the notification published on 3-3-1988 under Section 68c of the Act became operative immediately on the expiration cf 2-3-1988. Thus from the zero hour of 3-3-1988, the notification became operative. The impugned permits are granted during the office hours on 3-3 1988 much later to the commencement of the operation of the notification. Thus the permits are granted to the petitioners in contravention cf Sec. 68f (1d) of the Act. As such the sams are rightly set aside by the K. S. T A. T. 7. This is a case in which there is no necessity of applying the principle laid down in Ameer Pasha's case (W P. No. 5101/89 ). In this case, the draft scheme, as pointed out above, came into force before the consideration of the applications filed by the petitioners for grant of permits. This is a case in which there is no necessity of applying the principle laid down in Ameer Pasha's case (W P. No. 5101/89 ). In this case, the draft scheme, as pointed out above, came into force before the consideration of the applications filed by the petitioners for grant of permits. Accordingly, the ultimate decision arrived at by the K. S. T. A. T. is not liable to be disturbed. ( 8 ) LASTLY it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the draft scheme published on 3-3- 1988, covering the routes in question the petitioners have sought for grant of permits under Section 68f (1c) of the Act on the routes in question. Therefore, their applications may be directed to be considered. As far as the applications filed under Section 68f (1c) are concerned, the same can be considered if the K. S. R. T. C. has not made any application even after service of notice on it as per the Karnataka state Transport Undertaking Rules, 1976. If the K. S. R. T. C. has not filed the applications, the applications filed by the petitioners are entitled to be considered. Where as, if the K. S. R. T. C. has filed applications, in view of Section 68f (1a) of the Act, it will be entitled to a preference. ( 9 ) WITH these observations, the writ petitions are dismissed. The R. T. A. is directed to consider the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 68f (1c) of the Act if the KSRTC dod not file the application under Section 68 (1a) of the Act, as early as possible as there will be no service on the route in view of the fact that the permits granted to the petitioners are set aside and the travelling public will be put to great hardship and inconvenience. ( 10 ) SRI P. R. Ramesh, learned High court Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 in six weeks. Petitions dismissed. --- *** --- .