ORDER B.C. Varma, Actg. C.J. 1. After introduction of Chapter IV-A in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the State of Madhya Pradesh published Scheme No. 89 under Section 68-C of that Act on 30-9-1983 which includes a portion of the route from Bilaspur to Korba via Katghora. The Scheme is still pending finalisation under Section 68-D of the Act. In view of Section 68-F(l-D), falling under that Chapter, no regular permits could be granted or renewed on this route. However, during the pendency of such a scheme, the needs of the travelling public are to be served by issue of temporary permits. The petitioner had been obtaining temporary permits on the route Bilaspur to Parsabhata including a distance of 3 Kilometers from Balco to Parsabhata not covered under the notified scheme, for a period of four months each. However, one of such applications for grant of temporary permits was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority by order dated 2-1-1989. The petitioner alleges that this has been done following the decisions of this Court in M. P. No. 2979 of 1988 and M. P. No. 2885 of 1988, in which directions are contained not to grant continuous temporary permits but to invite applications for grant of regular permits. The petitioner informs the Court despite the aforesaid two decisions by this Court, temporary permit has been granted on route Bilsapur to Balco in favour of one Hakimuddin. While granting this temporary permit, the R. T. A. referred to a decision of this Court in Misc. Petition No. 3290 of 1983, where such temporary grant has been maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was thus a conflict in the views taken by this Court in the matter of grant of temporary permit, pending finalisation of the scheme, proposed under Section 68-D of the Act. By order dated, 23-6-1989, Hon'ble the Chief Justice was requested to form a larger Bench for resolving the controversy. This is how the matter comes before this Full Bench. Similar question also arises for decision in Miscellaneous Petition No. 2569 of 1989 and Miscellaneous Petition No. 2433 of 1989. 2. Shri Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner, addressed the Court on behalf of the petitioner in Miscellaneous Petition No. 2569/89 and Misc. Petition No. 2433/89, while Shri Rawat addressed on behalf of the petitioner is Misc. Petition No. 531 of 1989. 2. Shri Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner, addressed the Court on behalf of the petitioner in Miscellaneous Petition No. 2569/89 and Misc. Petition No. 2433/89, while Shri Rawat addressed on behalf of the petitioner is Misc. Petition No. 531 of 1989. Shri V. S. Dabir argued on behalf of the M. P. State Road Transport Corporation. Shri Hassan, while opening his address, formulated the following two questions to be resolved : (1) Whether a temporary permit can be granted jointly under Section 68-F(l-C) and Section 62(l)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and (2) If temporary permit on an application made by a private operator for the route partly covered and partly not covered by a scheme and carved out by the operator, can be granted under Section 68-F(l-C) of the Act ? 3. To answer these questions, one has to notice the scheme in Chapter IV-A of the Act. As the heading of the Chapter itself indicates, the provisions falling thereunder have been specially carved out in relation to the State Transport Undertakings. They are in addition to the other provisions, which may also apply to such undertakings. However, as appears from Section 68-B, this provision in Chapter IV-A and the rules and orders made thereunder have over-riding effect over other provisions in the Act, in their application to the State Transport Undertakings, but only to the extent of inconsistency between them and the provisions under Chapter IV-A. Thus Chapter IV-A may not be a self-contained code by itself. The other provisions of the Act in so far as the language warrants also apply in relation to proceedings under Chapter IV-A, except in so far as they may be expressly or by reason of repugnance or inconsistency, overridden. (See Mohd. Ashfaq v. S.T.A.T, U.P, AIR 1976 SC 2161 ). Section 68-C permits a State Transport Undertaking/Corporation to prepare a scheme and get the same published in official gazette and in such manner as the State Government may direct, specifying any area or route or a portion thereof to be run and operated by that undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise. Section 68-C permits a State Transport Undertaking/Corporation to prepare a scheme and get the same published in official gazette and in such manner as the State Government may direct, specifying any area or route or a portion thereof to be run and operated by that undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise. After considering the objections to such proposed scheme and after hearing the objectors, the scheme so proposed may be approved or modified and then the approved or modified scheme is required to be published under Section 68-D(3) and on such publication it becomes final and is called the approved scheme. Then, by force of Section 68-F(1), the R.T.A., on the application by the State Transport Undertaking, shall issue a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit or a contract carriage permit in respect of that notified area or notified route to such transport undertaking, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter IV. With a, view to regulate grant of temporary permits during the pendency and consideration of the scheme published under Section 68-C, Section 68-F was amended to incorporate sub-sections (1-A to 1-D) with effect from 2-3-1970. These provisions may be quoted :- "68-F(1A). Where any scheme has been published by a State transport undertaking under Section 68-C, that undertaking may apply for a temporary permit, in respect of any area or route or portion thereof specified in the said scheme, for the period intervening between the date of publication of the scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme, and where such application is made, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall, if it is satisfied that it is necessary to increase, in the public interest, the number of vehicles operating in such area or route or portion thereof, issue the temporary permit prayed for by the State transport undertaking. (IB) A temporary permit issued in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (1-A) shall be effective,- (i) if the scheme is published under sub-section (3) of Section 68-D, until the grant of the permit to the State transport undertaking under sub-section (1), or (ii) if the scheme is not published under sub-section (3) of Section 68-D, until the expiration of the one week from the date on which the order under sub-section (2) of Section 68-D is made. (1C) If no application for temporary permit is made under sub-section (1-A), the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority as the case may be, grant, subject to such conditions as it may think fit, temporary permit to any person in respect of the area of route or portion thereof specified in the scheme and the permit so granted shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State transport undertaking in respect of that area or route or portion thereof. (ID) 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 68-C of any scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme, in favour of any person for 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 Section 68-C expires after such publication such permit may be renewed for a limited period, but the permit renewed shall cease to be effective on the publication of the scheme under sub-section (3) of Section 68-D." 4. These provisions enabling grant of temporary permit, pending consideration of the proposed scheme, were considered by the Supreme Court in Praveen Ansari v. S. T.A. Tribunal, Lucknow, AIR 1981 SC 516 , where it was held that the State Transport Authority has power under Section 68-F(1-C) to grant temporary permit to any person in respect of the area or the route or part thereof specified in the scheme. The expression "any person" would also include a person other than a corporation/undertaking. It was emphasised that the provisions of Section 68-F(1A) and Section 68-F(1-C) should be read harmoniously. The expression "any person" would also include a person other than a corporation/undertaking. It was emphasised that the provisions of Section 68-F(1A) and Section 68-F(1-C) should be read harmoniously. It was held : - "If the corporation applies for temporary permits undoubtedly, the State Transport Authority cannot grant permit to any one else if the Corporation has applied for all the permits. But Section 68-F(l-C) clearly envisages a situation where application for a temporary permit is not made under Section 68-F(l-A) by the Corporation and there is felt need for providing transport service on the route in question." In such an event, it was held that if the Corporation was unable to provide vehicles for the optimum strength fixed by the State Transport Authority, the remaining permits will have to be granted to any other person willing to obtain temporary permit and ply vehicle because in respect of the remaining strength, there would be no application by the Corporation and Section 68-F(1C) would be squarely attracted. In that event, application for grant of temporary permits made by persons other than the Corporation will have to be examined and temporary permits will have to be granted for the benefit of large travelling public. It is with this view to meet the primary consideration of catering to the need of the travelling public that the authority, pending such a scheme, has been given power to increase the strength of fleet on the route. While considering the meaning to be attributed to the expression 'permit' used in Section 68-F(1-C), the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Sayed Jaslam v. S. T.A. Tribunal, A.P., AIR 1982 A. P. 220 at p. 227, column 1, also took the similar view, when it said that the provisions are intended to cover a case where there is delay between the publication of the draft scheme and the publication of the approved or modified scheme; and in such a case if an application for a temporary permit is made by the State Transport Undertaking, the authority may grant the temporary permit to the Undertaking if it is satisfied that it is necessary to increase, in the public interest, the number of vehicles operating on such route. If the Undertaking does not make any such application, a temporary permit may be granted to a private operator, the object of the provision being to meet and serve public interest. If the Undertaking does not make any such application, a temporary permit may be granted to a private operator, the object of the provision being to meet and serve public interest. Another Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Ch. V. Reddy v. Jt. Transport Commr. and Secretary, S. T.A., AIR 1985 A.P. 361 , emphasised that temporary permit under Section 68-F(1-C) can be granted only when the authority reaches the requisite satisfaction as to the need to increase the number of vehicles operating on the notified route. Unless such satisfaction to increase the number of vehicles in public interest on notified area or route or portion thereof, is reached, temporary permit cannot be granted even to Transport Undertaking. These decisions thus unequivocally lay down that it is only with a view to cater to the need of the travelling public during the pendency of the scheme published under Section 68-C and before its final publication, that provisions are made under Section 68-F(l-D) for grant of temporary permit on the area or route or portion thereof. The existing strength can be increased if the Transport Authority is satisfied that there is a felt need to cope up with the demands of the travelling public. A Transport Undertaking/Corporation has a preferential right to obtain such temporary permit and it is only when such a permit cannot be made available to the Corporation that the same can be granted to private operators, after considering their merits. 4A. Section 62 of 1939 Act authorises the Regional Transport Authority to grant permits to be effective for a limited period not in any case to exceed four months, to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily. In such a case procedure under Section 57 may not be followed. One of the purposes of such grant, according to sub-section (1)(C), may be to meet a particular temporary need. We have seen above that pending finalisation of a scheme, temporary permits to persons other than the Corporation or transport undertaking can also be granted in case of a felt need of transport facilities and if the Corporation does not intend to put in more vehicles on the route. However, sub-section (1-C) of Section 68-F does not provide any details either of the purpose for which, or the period for which, a temporary permit can be granted. However, sub-section (1-C) of Section 68-F does not provide any details either of the purpose for which, or the period for which, a temporary permit can be granted. It was, therefore, held by a Special Bench of this Court, consisting of five Judges, in Premchand v. R.T.A., Gwalior, 1977 MPLJ 94, that in the matter of grant of temporary permit under Section 68-F(1-C), the provisions of Section 62 will apply, as there is nothing in sub-section (1-C) which is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 62. Both can be read together; a combined effect can be and, therefore, must be given to both. It was further held that the general provision in Section 62 applies to all cases except where there is an embargo, and applies also to the latter when the embargo is lifted. An earlier decision of this Court in Dhanna Singh v. R. T.A., Gwalior, 1974 MPLJ 922 , was accorded approval, in which decision it was held that there is no inconsistency between the provisions of Chapter IV and Chapter IV-A. This view is also shared by the Rajasthan High Court in a decision in Srinath Sharma v. S. T.A., Tribunal, AIR 1977 Raj. 221 , where the learned Single Judge, after a thoughtful consideration of the relevant provisions, held that a temporary permit can be issued by invoking the power both under Section 68-F(1-C) and Section 62(1)(c) and, therefore, where a portion of the route is covered by a draft scheme under Section 68-C to which Section 68-F(1-C) applies and the other portion is not under either an approved or draft scheme a temporary permit in respect of the entire route can be granted if the embargo of Section 68-F(1-C) does not apply to the portion covered by the draft scheme because the State Transport Undertaking has not applied for a temporary permit under Section 68-F(1-A) and the conditions laid down in Section 62(1 )(c) are complied with. 5. Shri Hassan, however, submitted that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 68-F(1-C) and Section 62(1)(c) covers entirely different fields. It was submitted that jurisdiction to grant temporary permit on inter-regional route vests in State Transport Authority and on regional route in Regional Transport Authority and no form is prescribed under Section 68-F(1-C) and form is prescribed only for an application under Section 62 read with Rule 77 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. It was submitted that jurisdiction to grant temporary permit on inter-regional route vests in State Transport Authority and on regional route in Regional Transport Authority and no form is prescribed under Section 68-F(1-C) and form is prescribed only for an application under Section 62 read with Rule 77 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. We fail to see how these submissions support Shri Hassan's contention that during the pendency of a scheme and because of overriding provision in Section 68-B, provisions of Section 62 become wholly inapplicable. The Act prescribes an authority for grant of permit temporary or otherwise vis-a-vis the regions or even on inter-regional routes and lothing more. As we have seen above, the matter of grant of temporary permit is covered under both the provisions and it is only when the embargo under Section 68-F(1-C) is lifted, the provisions of Section 62(1)(c) become applicable. Equally futile is the contention that for an application in one case a form is prescribed and in the other no form is prescribed. Such contention has no bearing upon the question of determining the applicability of a given provision. We also fail to see as to how, as contended by Shri Hassan, the purpose of grant of permits for certain duration under Section 68-F(1-C) and Section 62(1)(c) is different. Both these provisions deal with grant of temporary permits to satisfy the need of the travelling public. In one case, i.e. Section 68-F(1-C) it is only when the State Transport Undertaking declines to put any more vehicle on the route to cater the need of the travelling public that a private operator may be granted temporary permit under Section 62(1)(c), if he fulfils other conditions. We have also seen above, that the view of this Court is that a temporary permit under Section 68-F(1-C) cannot be granted for a period more than four months. We do not see any reason to take a different view of the matter. Instead, we are bound in this behalf by the decision of five Judges of this Court in Premchand's case (supra). There is also no gainsaying that under Section 62 temporary permit can be granted for any route-regional, inter-regional, inter-State while under Section 68 only for the route notified or part thereof. Instead, we are bound in this behalf by the decision of five Judges of this Court in Premchand's case (supra). There is also no gainsaying that under Section 62 temporary permit can be granted for any route-regional, inter-regional, inter-State while under Section 68 only for the route notified or part thereof. This is so because what falls for our consideration is the grant of a temporary permit on a notified route or part thereof and also partly notified and partly not notified, and whether for grant of such permits on such a route, provisions of Section 62(1) are also attracted. Supporting his contention, Shri Hassan advanced another argument that temporary permit under Section 62 cannot be granted continuously as it may of necessity spell out a need for regular permit while under Section 68-F(1-C), successive temporary permit can be granted until the scheme is finalised. This contention does not persuade us to hold total inapplication of Section 62 during the pendency of scheme under Section 68. In our opinion, there may be circumstances when the temporary need and permanent need both mayco-exist and in that event grant of temporary permit would be permissible. It was held in M.P.S.R.T.C. v. R.T. Authority, AIR 1966 SC 156 , that there is no antithesis is between a particular temporary need and a permanent need and it is manifest that these two kinds of need may co-exist on a particular route, and Section 62(1)(c) contemplates that there may exist a temporary need for transport facilities on a particular route even in case of permanent need for such facilities. (See : Srinath Sharma's case, para 12 (supra)). We, thus, repel all the contentions raised by Shri Hassan in support of his submission that while pending finalisation of a scheme, a temporary permit to a private operator cannot be granted under Section 62(1)(c). 6. The. (See : Srinath Sharma's case, para 12 (supra)). We, thus, repel all the contentions raised by Shri Hassan in support of his submission that while pending finalisation of a scheme, a temporary permit to a private operator cannot be granted under Section 62(1)(c). 6. The. position that now appears to be in the light of the decisions of this Court and that of the Rajasthcin High Court is that temporary permit can well be issued under Section 68-F(1-C) and Section 62(1)(c) where the portion of a route is covered under a draft scheme under Section 68-C and the embargo under Section 68-F(1-C) does not apply to the portion covered by the draft scheme because the State Transport Undertaking has not applied for a temporary permit under Section 68-F(1-A), inasmuch as there is a felt need to increase the number of vehicles plying on the route covered by that scheme, and if the conditions laid down therein are complied with. This is our answer to the first question posed by Shri Hassan. 7. This now takes us to the second question. While proposing a scheme under Section 68-C, the State Transport Undertaking is required to give the particulars of the nature of the service proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and such other particulars respecting thereto, as may be prescribed, and every such scheme is to be published in offical Gazette in the area or route which is proposed to be covered. Thus, according to Section 68-C, a route covered by the scheme is the route which is specified in the scheme over which the Undertaking proposes to run its services irrespective of whether the scheme proposes to exclude or not to exclude private operators from that route. Section 68-F(1-D) enacts a prohibition during the period between the publication of the scheme and the date of publication of the approved scheme and provides that during this period, no permit can be granted or renewed in relation to "an area or route or portion thereof covered by such scheme." Sub-sections (1-A) and (1-C) lift the ban as regards temporary permits and permits grant of temporary permits in respect of State Transport Undertaking in respect of an area or route or portion thereof specified in the scheme. In Damodar Das v. R.T.A., Rewa, 1977 MPLJ 1 , it was held that since all these provisions are closely connected and operate in the same field, it is clear that the words "covered by such scheme" in sub-section (1-D) mean the same thing as "specified in the scheme" used in the proviso and sub-sections (1-A) and (1-C). Temporary permit under Section 68-F( 1-C) can be granted to any person in respect of an area or route or portion thereof specified in the scheme only when State Transport Undertaking does not apply for grant of such temporary permit and on a declaration made by the State Transport Authority as to its satisfaction that it is necessary to increase the number of vehicles operating in the area or route or portion thereof. It is, therefore, clear that such a temporary permit under Section 68-F(1-C) may be granted even to an operator other than the State Transport Undertaking also in respect of an area or route or portion thereof specified in the scheme. The clear terms of Section 68-F(1-C) on their own force do not admit of grant of any temporary permit which is beyond and not part of the area or route or portion thereof specified in the scheme. Thus, in terms of Section 68-F(1-A) and (1-C), it is the State Transport Undertaking which has been given a right to operate services even on temporary permits on specified route or portion thereof in case of its satisfaction as to the increase of number of vehicles operating in such area or route or portion thereof. It is only upon the State Transport Undertaking not putting its vehicle to satisfy the increased need, that any other person is permitted to secure temporary permit on that specified route. Thus, a private operator is entitled to obtain a temporary permit even during the pendency of a scheme and in respect of a route specified under Section 68-F(1-C) and at the same time, is also entitled to grant of temporary permit under Section 62(1)(c) in respect of unspecified route, if the Transport Undertaking declines to obtain temporary permit and conditions under Section 62(1)(c) are satisfied. To us, there appears to be no embargo or impediment in permitting such a course. We certainly have a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ch. V. Reddy v. Jt. To us, there appears to be no embargo or impediment in permitting such a course. We certainly have a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ch. V. Reddy v. Jt. Transport Commissioner and Secretary, R.T.A., AIR 1985 AP 361 , expressing a contrary view holding that a route carved out by a private operator is an imaginary route and acceptance of carved out theory will lead to destroying of the statutory priority granted to the State Transport Undertaking. We, however, prefer to follow the view expressed by the two Full Bench decisions of this Court and also propounded by the Rajasthan High Court in Srinath Sharma's case (supra). Our answer to the second question thus is that a temporary permit to a private operator for a route partly covered or partly not covered by a scheme can be granted under Section 68-F(1-C) read with Section 62(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. All the three petitions shall now be placed before the appropriate Bench for disposal.