SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) ALL the respondents are represented. Learned Government Pleader has received the records also. Hence the petition is heard for final disposal. ( 2 ) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 30th june, 1988 passed by the 3rd respondent in appeal No. URA 959/1986 and other connected appeals produced as Annexure-C. He has also sought for issuing a suitable direction to Respondents-1 and 2 in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 3 ) UNDISPUTED facts of the case are as follows: sri Sheik Ameer, the father of the petitioner was granted a Stage Carriage Per mit bearing No. 7/73-74 before the davangere Draft Scheme was published on 29-8-1973 on the following three routes: i) Chitradurga to Shimoga. ii) Chitradurga to Naikanahatty; and iii) Chitradurga to Bheemasamudra. Subsequently the permit came to be transferred in the name of Smt. Ameenabi- the mother of the petitioner. Smt. Ameenabi, on 5-7-1984 made an application for grant of additional trip with another vehicle on the aforesaid three routes. That application was published in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' ). "during the pendency of the application, according to the case of the petitioner, there was a partition in the family and in that partition the permit in question was allotted to the share of the petitioner and it was also transferred in his name. However, no action was taken by him to have his name substituted in the application dated 5-7-84 filed by Smt. Ameena Bi. Thus the application was continued in the name of Smt. Ameenabi. The application was heard on 22nd/23rd July, 1986. "the resolution it appears, was released on 23-7-86. From the records made available by learned Government Pleader, it is apparent that on 23-7-86 an application for substitution was filed through a counsel. It was contended before the R. T. A. by the objectors that the application did not survive as the applicant had transferred the permit in the name of the petitioner, nevertheless the r. T. A. did not pass any order on the application filed by the petitioner. It was contended before the R. T. A. by the objectors that the application did not survive as the applicant had transferred the permit in the name of the petitioner, nevertheless the r. T. A. did not pass any order on the application filed by the petitioner. However curiously enough it granted variation in favour of Smt. Ameenabi even after noticing the objections raised by the objectors that ameenabi had lost right, title and interest in the permit. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the resolution of the r. T. A. some of the objectors preferred appeals before the Karnataka State Transport appellate Tribunal (for Short "tribunal") in u. R. A. Nos. 959,1013,1037,1047, 1061,1075 of 1986, 16/87 and 82/87, 1049/86, 79/87 and a. No. 55/87. The Tribunal heard all the appeals together and decided them by a common order dated 30th June, 1988. The tribunal allowed the appeals on three grounds: viz. i) that the applicant Smt. Ameenabi had transferred the permit during the pendency of application, therefore, she had ceased to have any interest in the proceedings; (ii) that on the date She application was heard by the R. T. A. no application was filed for substitution by the petitioner; (iii) that the Davangere Draft Scheme was published on 29-8-1973 and it covered certain portions of the routes in question, as such it was not permissible to grant variation. In support of the last ground the Tribunal followed a decision of this Court in Moiuddin shariff v KS. T. A. T. (ILR 1986 Kar. 3377 ). Accordingly the Tribunal allowed the appeals, set aside the resolution of the R. T. A. ( 5 ) HAVING regard to the submissions made on either side the following points arise for consideration:1) Whether the petitioner can be held to have made an application for substitution on the date the application for variation filed by Smt. Ameenabi was heard?2) If not, what is the effect of it?3) In view of the Davangere Draft scheme which was published on 29-8- 73, whether the Tribunal is right in holding that it is not permissible to grant variation of the conditions of the permit? ( 6 ) POINTS 1 and 2 : These two points go together, therefore they are taken up for consideration together. The records produced before me reveal that the subject was heard on 22nd as well as on 23rd July, 1986. ( 6 ) POINTS 1 and 2 : These two points go together, therefore they are taken up for consideration together. The records produced before me reveal that the subject was heard on 22nd as well as on 23rd July, 1986. Even the learned counsel for the objectors had filed their vakalaths on 23rd July, 1986. There is no doubt that the application was on 23rd July 1986 by the petitioner seeking substitution of his name in place of Smt. Ameenabi. That being the position the r. T. A. ought to have considered that application and decided the same. The fact that the permit was transferred to the petitioner was not disputed by any one of the objectors. It was also not contended by them that the petitioner was not entitled to be substituted. The only objection raised by them was that he had not sought substitution of his name in place of Ameenabi. As the records reveal the petitioner, in fact, had sought for substitution of his name; but the r. T. A. failed to pass an order. In such a situation the petitioner cannot be held to be at fault and cannot be made to suffer for the omission on the part of the R. T. A. The fact that learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to argue the case is also not in dispute. Under these circumstances it was an omission on the part of the R. T. A. is not passing an order on the application filed by the petitioner. Such omission did occasion in failure of justice, because the variation was granted in the name of Ameenabi instead of the petitioner, as Smt. Ameenabi had ceased to have any interest in the permit, as it was transferred in the name of the petitioner. However, this finding will not be of any help to the petitioner unless point No. 3 is answered in his favour. That being the position Point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered as follows:- i) The petitioner had filed an application for substituting his name in place of his mother Smt. Ameenabi pursuant to the transfer of permit made in his favour and the R. T. A. having resolved to grant the variation, ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioner for substitution. ii) In view of the finding on point No. 1, point No. 2 does not arise. ii) In view of the finding on point No. 1, point No. 2 does not arise. ( 7 ) POINT No. 3: It is not in dispute that davangere Draft Scheme was published on 29-8-73 and it was in force on 5-7-84- the date on which the application for grant of variation of the conditions of the permit was filed. No doubt the said Scheme came to be quashed by the Supreme Court in dharanendraiah's case (AIR 1987 s. C. 1324) on 17-2-1987 on the ground that there was a delay in approving the Draft scheme. However, liberty was reserved to the State Transport Undertaking to publish another Scheme. Pursuant to that the State transport undertaking has also published another Draft Scheme on 16-6-87 known as chitradurga Scheme. In this case it is not necessary to go into Chitradurga Scheme even though it is stated at the Bar that the said Scheme covers the routes in question. ( 8 ) THE point for consideration is, whether on the date the R. T. A. decided the application it was permissible for R. T. A. to grant variation. The contention of Sri srirangaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner is that, as the Davangere Scheme did not cover the entire routes and as it covered only portions of the routes, it did not come in the way of granting variation. It is submitted that it is only in a case where the entire route is covered by the Draft Scheme published under Section 68c of the Act section 68 F (1a), (1c) and (1d) are attracted and not in any another case; that the routes included in the Draft Scheme covered the routes in question at three places i. e. Malladihalli cross to Dummi cross-7 furlongs, Goraga Cross to channagiri-4 furlongs and Channagiri to ajjihalli cross-1 K. M. It is also further submitted that these portions while considering the approved Scheme are held to be intersections and not overlappings. Therefore, there was and there is no obstacle whatsoever for granting the variation. It appears to me that it is not possible to accept these submissions. The considerations that weigh for considering the approved scheme and the Draft Scheme are quite different. Therefore, there was and there is no obstacle whatsoever for granting the variation. It appears to me that it is not possible to accept these submissions. The considerations that weigh for considering the approved scheme and the Draft Scheme are quite different. In the case of Draft Scheme Section 68f (1d) specifically provides that even if a portion of the route is covered, grant or renewal of a permit or grant of variation of the conditions of the permit is not permissible during the subsistence of the draft scheme unless the case falls under the proviso to sub-section (1d) of Section 68f of the Act. Similar question arose in Moiuddin Shariff v k. S. TA. T. , (ILR 1986 Kar. 3377 ). This court has held thus:"3. The contention of Sri P. R. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner, being an existing operator, is entitled to have additional trips granted when the need for granting additional trips is found to exist. Even when the KSRTC files an application for seeking temporary permit under Section 68f (1a) of the Act, on the route Chitradurga to Davangere, the right of the petitioner to seek additional trip is not in any way affected. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in AIR 1980 Karnataka, page 199, and also a Full Bench decision of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 949/74 and also a decision reported in AIR 1984 Karnataka page 221. It is not possible to accept this contention. The petitioner is an existing operator with reference to the davangere Draft Scheme. During the operation of the draft scheme, the permits can be granted only in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 68f of the act, and not in any manner. No doubt, the existing operator is "is entitled to seek additional trip if it is found that it is necessary to increase number of vehicles on the route and that determination is made as per the provisions contained in Section 68f (1a) of the Act. But, on such determination being made, if the State Transport Undertaking seeks temporary permit under Section 68f (1a) of the Act in respect of the very route, the existing operator will not be entitled to the grant of additional trip sought for by him. But, on such determination being made, if the State Transport Undertaking seeks temporary permit under Section 68f (1a) of the Act in respect of the very route, the existing operator will not be entitled to the grant of additional trip sought for by him. Such an additional trip can be granted to an existing private operator only if the KSRTC- the State Undertaking-does not seek permit in that regard. Learned Counsel however submits that the grant of additional trip does not amount to grant of fresh permit; therefore, existence of the draft scheme does not in any way affect the right an existing operator to seek additional trip. This contention overlooks the mandate of Section 68f (1d) ( of the Act that during the subsistence of the Draft Scheme, the permits are to be granted only in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 68f (1a) and (1c) of the Act; therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention. The question is not whether it does or does not affect the right of the existing operator; the question will be whether in respect of the additional trip sought for by the existing operator, whether the State Transport Undertaking has sought for grant of permit under Section 68f (1a) of the Act. If the State Transport Undertaking seeks temporary permit under Section 68f (1a) of the Act, no private operator is entitled to seek temporary permit under Section 68f (1c) of the Act, or grant of additional trip to the existing permit. In the instant case, the KSRTC has sought for such permit. The aforesaid decisions only lay down that the existing operators are entitled to seek additional trips. They are not rendered in the context of Draft Schemes. Therefore, the scope for granting variation of the conditions of permit during the subsistence of the draft scheme is not covered by those decisions. This is governed by the provisions of the Act. Section 68f (1d) of the Act, expressly provides that save as otherwise provided in sub-section (1a) or sub-section (1c), no permit shall be 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 or road transport service in relation to an area or route or portion thereof covered by such scheme. The proviso thereof specifically makes it clear that if the permit expires after the publication of the scheme, it can be renewed. Thus, from subsection (1d) of Section 68f of the Act, it is clear that during the subsistence of the Draft scheme, the permits can be granted only in accordance with the provisions of Section 68f (1a) and (1c) of the Act. The contention that the grant of variation of conditions of the permit does not amount to grant of fresh permit; therefore Section 68f of the act is not attracted, cannot be accepted because if that contention is accepted, the provisions contained in Section 68f (1a) (1c) and (1d) of the Act will be rendered nugatory. As one of the reasons given by the authorities below that the variation is not granted having regard to the fact that the k. S. R. T. C. has filed an application for grant of permit under Section 68f (1a) of the Act, is valid, I do not see any justification to interfere with the impugned orders of the authorities below". In M/s. Anna Transport Corporation v r. TA. Dhannapuri, (AIR 1980 S. C. 2044) the Supreme Court has held as follows:"as has been stated, a draft scheme of road transport service of the appellant Corporation was published on June 4, 1976, under Section 68-C of the Act and as has been mentioned, that scheme overlapped a section of the Salem-Krishnagiri route. It follows, therefore, that by virtue of the clear provision of sub-section (1d) of Section 68-F of the Act, no permit could be granted or renewed during the period intervening between the date of publication of the aforesaid scheme under Section 68-C, that is, after june 4, 1976, and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme, in favour of any person for" any class of road transport service. The High Court, therefore, clearly went wrong in thinking that the case fell within the purview of the proviso to sub-section (1d) and it consequently erred in taking into consideration the so-called rider to proposition No. 2 mentioned in this Court's judgment in Charan's case AIR 1977 SC 1564 (supra ). The proviso would have been applicable only if the period of operation of the permit of the respondents had expired after the publication of the scheme prepared under Section 68-C; but that was not so in this case. The proviso would have been applicable only if the period of operation of the permit of the respondents had expired after the publication of the scheme prepared under Section 68-C; but that was not so in this case. It has also to be remembered that in this case it was the respondent (private operator) who filed a fruitless writ petition and prevented the disposal of the renewal application for a long term by obtaining a stay order. On a plain reading of sub-section (1d) of Section 68-F of the Act, we have, therefore no hesitation in allowing the appeals with costs. We may, however, add that if no approved or modified scheme has been published so far, the proper course for the regional Transport Authority would be to keep the three renewal applications pending and not to treat them as dismissed. The stay orders are vacated. "again in Pandiyan Roadways Corporation ltd. v Thiru MA. Egappan (AIR 1987 S. C. 958) while considering the scope of Section 68f (1d) of the Act the Supreme Court has held thus:"from the above observation of the High court deduced that an application for the variation of a permit held by the respondent was not in fact an application for a permit and did not fall within mischief of Section 68f (1d) of the Act. In the context in which Section 68f (1d) appears we find it difficult to agree that the application for variation of a permit by including the whole or any part of route in respect of which a scheme is published under Section 68-C of the Act can be treated as falling outside the mischief of section 68f (1d) of the Act. There is no justification to limit the application of section 68f (1d) of the Act to only applications for fresh permits or their renewal and to leave out application for variation of permits by the inclusion of the route or a portion of the route in respect of which a scheme is published. The fact that the applicant is the holder of a permit to operate a stage carriage on another route whose variation he is seeking by the inclusion of a route or a part thereof in respect of which a scheme is published under Section 68c of the Act ought not to make any difference. The fact that the applicant is the holder of a permit to operate a stage carriage on another route whose variation he is seeking by the inclusion of a route or a part thereof in respect of which a scheme is published under Section 68c of the Act ought not to make any difference. The principle underlying Section 68f (1d) of the Act is that the number of services on such a route should be frozen on the publication of a scheme under Section 68c of the act. " ( 9 ) IN the light of the aforesaid decisions and also in view of the fact that the Tribunal has followed the decision of this Court in moiuddin Sharifps case, I do not see any justification to hold that the Tribunal is wrong in allowing the appeal and setting aside the variation granted in favour of the mother of the petitioner. Accordingly, Point No. 3 is answered in the affirmative. ( 10 ) HAVING regard to the finding recorded on Point No. 3, the order of the Tribunal does not call for interference even though point No. 1 is answered in favour of the petitioner. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons stated above the petition fails and the same is dismissed. ( 12 ) AT this stage it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that to enable the petitioner to avail the right of appeal, the status quo prevailing as on today regarding operation of services by the petitioner may be maintained as the petitioner has been operating the service pursuant to the interim order passed in the writ petition. As the petitioner has a right of appeal the submission made is accepted and the status quo regarding operation of services by the petitioner is continued till 28-2-1989. --- *** --- .