JUDGMENT R. A. Sharma, J. 1. Petitioners are existing operators holding stage carriage permits for Muzaffarnagar Bijnor route (here-in-after referred to as the route). The route is inter-regional route, partly lying within the jurisdiction of Regional Transport Authority, Meerut (here-in-after referred to as the R. T. A.) and partly within the jurisdiction of R. T. A. Moradabad. R. T. A., Meerut by its resolution dated 4-5-1989 had granted 5 permanent stage carriage permits on the route and by another subsequent resolution passed on 21-9-1989, 20 more permanent stage carriage permits had been granted for the same route. It is against the aforesaid two resolutions of the R. T. A. granting 24 permanent stage carriage permits on this route that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. Petitioner has challenged the granting of the permits on the route on the grounds : firstly route is natiotionalised by an approved scheme under which only State Transport Undertaking and existing operators have been permitted to ply their vehicles; and secondly, route had been taken over by the State Transport Authority, U. P. Lucknow and the R. T. A. as such, had no jurisdiction to grant permits. When the writ petition was filed, the impugned resolutions of the R. T. A. referred to above, were not enclosed as their copies were not made available to the petitioner and as such, at the time of filing the writ petition only R. T. As. Meerut and Moradabad were impleaded as respondents. However, after the copies of the impugned resolutions were made available to the petitioner, the grantees have been impleaded as respondents by an order dated 22-3-1990, passed by this Court and the petitioner was directed to serve the respondents. The petitioner thereafter has filed an affidavit of service. Only one of the grantees, namely. Sri Kiran Singh has put in appearance in this Court and has filed counter and supplementary counter affidavits. Petitioner in reply thereto has also filed rejoinder affidavit. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and the writ petitions are being disposed of in accordance with the Rules of the Court. 3. The route was nationalised by a scheme dated 28-9-1977, notified under section 68 -D .(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which has been published in the U. P. gazette on 5-11-1977. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and the writ petitions are being disposed of in accordance with the Rules of the Court. 3. The route was nationalised by a scheme dated 28-9-1977, notified under section 68 -D .(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which has been published in the U. P. gazette on 5-11-1977. Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 7 of the scheme being relevant are quoted below ; "2. State Road Transport Services shall be provided on the route Bijnor to Muzaffarnagar route of Meerut Region. 3. Two each way State Road Transport Services according to requirements of direct traffic are to be provided on the route mentioned in clause (2). 4. Persons other than the State Transport Undertaking will be permitted to provide the existing Road Transport Services on the portion Muzaffarnagar Bijnor of the route specified in clause (2) above. 7. The number of Transport Vehicles plying on the portions of the route specified in clause (2) above shall continue to ply as heretofore." From the perusal of the scheme, it is apparent that apart from State Road Transport Services existing Road Transport Services by persons other than Undertaking have been permitted on the Bijnor Muzaffarnagar route. Para 7 of the scheme has made the position clear, whereby number of Transport Vehicles on any portion of the route in question have been frozen and allowed to continue to ply as heretofore. 4. Supreme Court in M/s. Adarsh Travel Bus Service v. State of U. P., AIR 1986 SC 319 has laid down that : "Once a scheme is published under section 68-D in relation to any area or route or portion thereof, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial of other persons or otherwise, no person other than the State Transport Undertaking may operate on the notified area or notified route except as provided in the scheme itself." The legal position as settled by the Supreme Court is that if the scheme is for exclusive operation of the State Transport Undertaking, no person other than State Transport Undertaking can ply on the notified route or portion thereof but if the scheme provides for partial exclusion than the permits can be granted only in accordance with the scheme. In the cases of T. N. Raghunath Reddy v. Mysore State Transport Authority, AIR 1971 SC 1662 and D. M. Thippeswamy v. Mysore Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1972 SC 1674 where "existing permit holders on the inter State routes" were permitted to ply by the approved scheme, Supreme Court declared that a person, who was not holding any permit on the date of approved scheme or on the date on which State Transport Undertaking applied for permit under section 68-F (1) of the Act, cannot be granted any permit on the routes covered by the scheme inasmuch as exceptions have been made by the scheme in favour of the "existing permit holders." In the case of Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. Thiru M. A. Egappan, AIR 1987 SC 958 as the approved scheme made exception in favour of the existing operators mentioned in Annexure II of the scheme, Supreme Court held that no permit can be granted on the route to any person, who had no permit on the date of publication of the scheme. Similar is the position in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corparation v. Secretary, AIR 1987 SC 714 . 5. In the instant case the scheme has saved "the existing road transport services" by persons other than the State Transport Undertaking. Although, exception has not been made in favour of the existing permit holders but the existing road transport services have been saved. When the scheme was approved in 1977, 38 services were being operated by the private operators. As the exception has been made in favour of existing services only transport authorities cannot grant any permit over and above the limit of 38. The effect of the scheme is that on the route the services by private operators have been frozen at 38. In this connection it may be mentioned that this limit of 38 was raised to 50 by the R. T. A. in 1984 so as to enable it to grant 12 extra permits. This order of the R. T. A. increasing the limit of permits on the route from 38 to 50 was challenged by means of a revision No. 122 of 1984 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P., Lucknow. This order of the R. T. A. increasing the limit of permits on the route from 38 to 50 was challenged by means of a revision No. 122 of 1984 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P., Lucknow. Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 29-10-1984 allowed the revision and quashed the increase of strength on the ground that addition to the existing Road Transport Services by persons other than State Transport Undertaking is not permissible in view of the provisions contained in the approved scheme. Against this appellate order a writ petition No. 937 of 1986 was filed before this Court, which was dismissed on 11-12-1986 by a speaking order, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure III to the writ petition No. 19100 of 1989. The decisions of the Appellate Tribunal and this Court referred to above, declaring that no additional permits can be granted, are binding and were expected to be followed by the transport authorities; but unfortunately it was not done. The orders granting permits by the R. T. A. are absolutely unjustified and without authority of law. 6. Learned counsel for Sri Kiran Singh, one of the grantees of the new permits has argued that scheme being not for exclusive operation the transport authorities are fully justified to grant additional permits and in any case this Court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned resolutions of the R. T. A. as petitioner has an alternative remedy of revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and in fact some revisions have already been filed, which are pending before the Appellate Tribunal. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel. Although the scheme does not provide for exclusive operation by State Transport Undertaking, but as mentioned before scheme had made exception only in favour of the existing services. In view of the provisions contained in the scheme, it is not open to the transport authorities to grant additional permits. Regarding the second plea of alternative remedy, it may be mentioned that normally this Court does not interfere against an order against which there is a statutory alternative remedy. In view of the provisions contained in the scheme, it is not open to the transport authorities to grant additional permits. Regarding the second plea of alternative remedy, it may be mentioned that normally this Court does not interfere against an order against which there is a statutory alternative remedy. As the instant case does not involve any factual controversy and the provisions of the scheme being clear and the right of the transport authorities to grant additional permits on the route having already been negatived by the Appellate Tribunal and this Court as mentioned here- in-before, it will not be justified to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 7. That apart, when the orders are passed by any authority in violation of the Court's order, it becomes the duty of this Court to interfere in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Capt. Dushyant Somal v. Smt. Sushma Somal, AIR 1981 SC 1026 where the Supreme Court has declared that, "Alternative remedy ordinarily inhibits prerogative writ. But it is not an impassable hurdle. Where what is complained of is an impudent disregard of an order of a Court, the fact certainly cries out that a prerogative writ shall issue." 8. As the writ petition is being allowed on the first ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not necessary to go into the second contention made by him. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed with costs and the impugned resolutions of the R. T. As granting new permits on the route are quashed. Petition allowed.