JUDGMENT V.S. Malimath, C.J. 1. This appeal is by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing O.P. No. 6075 of 1989. The 3rd respondent is a stage carriage operator on the route Payippad to Oachira District Border via Kanappadi, Karthikappilly, Pullukulangara and Kayamkulam. It is admitted that the 3rd respondent has been an existing operator on the route Payippad-Oachira from the year 1951. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation put forward a scheme under Chapter IV A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which came to be approved and finalised as per Ext. P-1, dated 23rd November 1960. The area or route or routes in relation to which the scheme is proposed, the route or routes, starting point and terminus with important intermediate stations and route length, maximum and minimum number of stage carriages proposed to be operated in each route by the State Transport Undertaking to the exclusion of the private operators and other relevant information is furnished in the Annexure to the said scheme. We are concerned with the first route described as Quilon-Alleppey route. The intermediate places are mentioned in column (5). They are Kavanad, Neendakara, Chavara, Edappally--Cottah, Karunagappilly, Puthiakavu, Vavvakavu, Oachira, Kayamkulam, Kareekulangara, Cheppad, Haripad, Karuvatta, Thottappally, Purakkad, Ambalappuzha, Punnapra, and Kallarcode. The total length of the route is 53 miles. The maximum stage carriages proposed to be operated on each route is 20 and the minimum is 12. The number of trips to be operated by the K.S.R.T.C., maximum is 36 and the minimum is 24. Column (4) of the scheme reads "Maximum and minimum number of stage carriages proposed to be operated in each route by the State Transport Undertaking to the exclusion of private operators-Details furnished in the Annexure. In the light of this scheme the appellant objected to the renewal of the permit in favour of the 3rd respondent on the ground that the route of the 3rd respondent overlaps the nationalised route Alleppey-Quilon between Kayamkulam-Oachira District Border. In the light of this scheme the appellant objected to the renewal of the permit in favour of the 3rd respondent on the ground that the route of the 3rd respondent overlaps the nationalised route Alleppey-Quilon between Kayamkulam-Oachira District Border. This matter had come before this Court on an earlier occasion at the instance of 3rd respondent in O.P. No. 9894 of 1982 which was disposed of on 24th June 1986, directing the Regional Transport Authority to examine all the objections of the appellant, the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, for the renewal of the grant of permit on the ground that the route overlaps a portion of the notified route and to take an appropriate decision thereon. It is ia view of this mandate of this Court that the Regional Transport Authority, Alleppey, rendered its decision as per Ext. P-4, overruling the objections of the appellant and granting renewal for a period of three years curtailing the route as Oachira District Border-Payippad by its resolution, dated 22nd March 1989. It is the said order of renewal of the permit that the appellant challenged in O.P. No. 6075 of 1989. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant has an alternative remedy of revision. It is the said decision that is challenged in this appeal. 2. Having regard to the fact that the dispute has been lingering for a long time and the complaint of the appellant about grant of renewal of permit in contravention of the scheme of 1960 remains without being adjudicated upon, we consider it appropriate to examine and dispose of the matter on merits as the same question is likely to arise in several other cases notwithstanding the fact that the appellant could have approached the revisional authority. 3. On merits, the short question for consideration is as to whether the 3rd respondent could be granted renewal of permit originally granted in his favour in the year 1951, if a portion of the route from Kayamkulam to Oachira District Border overlaps a portion of the notified route from Alleppey to Quilon. An ingenious device has been adopted by the Regional Transport Authority to make it appear that the scheme is being respected while granting renewal of the permit in favour of the 3rd respondent. An ingenious device has been adopted by the Regional Transport Authority to make it appear that the scheme is being respected while granting renewal of the permit in favour of the 3rd respondent. The Regional Transport Authority seems to take the view that the intermediate places mentioned in. the scheme in respect of the route Alleppey-Quilon being Kayamkulam and Oachira, there is nothing to prevent a renewal being granted by shifting the terminus from Oachira to the District Border, slightly towards Kayamkulam side. On facts, we are inclined to take the view that this is a perverse attempt. The District Border and Oachira are fairly close to each other and no real or substantial distinction can be made. By shifting the terminus from Oachira to the District Border, the Regional Transport Authority has circumvented the scheme. We would like to rest our decision also on a more fundamental basis by proper interpretation of the scheme itself. In column (1) of Annexure 'A' of the Scheme, we have the relevant route, Route No. 1-Quilon-Alleppey. The intermediate places are mentioned in column (5). The two intermediate places mentioned therein with which we are concerned in this case are Oachira and Kayamkulam. The attempt made by the Regional Transport Authority is to shift the terminus as indicated in column (5) of the scheme, namely, Oachira and to a shorter distance towards Kayamkulam to a point described as District Border. District Border is not a place or town, but it is only a demarcating line. It could hardly be regarded as a focal point for the passengers to get out or get in. The attempt made is only to avoid the terminus 'Oachira' on the ground that this is the place mentioned as an intermediate place and if that place is the terminus, the route will have the vice of overlapping the notified route. But it is necessary to notice that the first part of the scheme describes it as "the area or route or routes in relation to which the scheme is proposed, as routes as indicated in Annexure-A and all routes connecting or passing through any two or more intermediate points of such routes." (Underlining ours). 4. The emphasis is on the intermediate points, and not on the intermediate places. 4. The emphasis is on the intermediate points, and not on the intermediate places. Thus it is made clear by the Scheme that the notified area covers all the points between Quilon and Alleppey and between intermediate places specified in column (5) of Annexure 'A' to the Scheme. The clear effect of the scheme therefore is, the entire route Quilon-Alleppey being a nationalised route overlapping on this route between, any two points has the effect of offending the Scheme. Therefore by merely avoiding Oachira as the terminus and fixing the District Border as the terminus, the Regional Transport Authority has not succeeded in preventing overlapping of the route between Kayamkulam and District Border. As this sector is certainly a part of the notified route Alleppey-Quilon, and as a portion of the route in respect of which the 3rd respondent had obtained a permit in the year 1951 thus overlaps the notified route the Regional Transport Authority was duty bound to take this aspect of the matter into account while granting renewal. It should have examined if it is possible to curtail the route, so as to avoid overlapping of the route and grant relief to third respondent in respect of that portion of the route which does not overlap. The learned counsel for the appellant rightly and fairly submitted that he has no objection for the curtailment of the route and granting of permit in favour of the third respondent, where there is no overlapping of any portion of the route. The overlapping as already indicated in respect of the renewed permit lies between Kayamkulam and District Border. As the remaining portion of the route from Payippadi to Kayamkulam does not overlap any portion of the notified route and as the 3rd respondent is an existing operator, there could not be any objection to the curtailment of the route up to Kayamkulam, while granting renewal. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent rightly and fairly submitted that if the portion of the route from Kayamkulam to District border overlaps the route his client should at least be granted renewal of the permit from Payippadi to Kayamkulam as no portion of this route overlaps any portion of the notified route. We must also bear in mind that what is prohibited is overlapping over the nationalised route and not inter section of any nationalised route or touching a station as terminus. We must also bear in mind that what is prohibited is overlapping over the nationalised route and not inter section of any nationalised route or touching a station as terminus. We have therefore no hesitation in taking the view that the Regional Transport Authority was clearly unjustified in renewing the permit by shifting the terminus which stood at Oachira to Oachira District border. We are informed that one more renewal has been granted during the pendency of these proceedings. Hence we should call upon the Regional Transport Authority to curtail the renewal of the permit so as to restrict it to Kayamkulam. 5. It is however submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that it is most unfair on the part of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation to pick and choose only the 3rd respondent for this discriminatory treatment as there are other routes overlapping the, same notified route in respect of which the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation has not taken any effective steps for challenging the grant or renewal of permits as it has chosen to do as against the 3rd respondent. He submitted that the action of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation is discriminatory in character and therefore we should decline to interfere having regard to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions reported ia AIR 1981 SC 1636 between Vishnudas Mundumal v. State of M.P. and in AIR 1981 SC 1639 between Allied Transport Co. v. State of M.P. But having regard to the public interest involved and also having regard to the fact that there was a mandamus issued by this Court on an earlier occasion to the R.T.A. and having regard to the undertaking given by the appellant that they would take immediate steps to challenge all grants and renewals in respect of the portion of the notified route in question with which we are dealing with in this case, we do not propose to decline to interfere in this case. We do expect the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation to act promptly consistent with the undertaking given to this Court to bring all permits and / or renewals granted to the other operators covering the same sector of the notified route so that the discriminatory privilege that some operators enjoy does not continue for an unduly long period of time. We do expect the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation to act promptly consistent with the undertaking given to this Court to bring all permits and / or renewals granted to the other operators covering the same sector of the notified route so that the discriminatory privilege that some operators enjoy does not continue for an unduly long period of time. We have no doubt that the Regional Transport Authority will consider it its duty to ensure that the same principle that we have enunciated in this case is uniformly and consistently applied in respect of other similar routes. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and we quash Ext. P-4 and remit the case back to the Regional Transport Authority, Alleppey, to curtail the renewal of the permit granted in favour of the 3rd respondent restricting the permit up to Kayamkulam and excluding the portion from Kayamkulam to Oachira District Border. Until such a decision is taken by the Regional Transport Authority, the 3rd respondent shall be permitted to continue to operate on the route in question on the basis of the renewal granted per as Ext. P-4. The Kerala State Road Transport Cooperation is directed to take appropriate action in the light of the observations we made in the earlier portion of the judgment. No costs.