R. V. VASANTHAKUMAR, J. ( 1 ) WRIT appeals nos. 1612 of 1989, 1641 of 1989, 1642 of 1989 and 2018 of 1989 are filed by the Karnataka state road transport corporation. W. a. no. 1612 of 1989 is directed against the order dated 12-6-89 passed in W. P. no. 36866 of 1982. W. as. 1641 of 1989 and 1642 of 1989 are directed against the order dated 12-6-1989 passed in W. P. nos. 36814-36815 of 1982. w. a. no. 2018 of 1989 is directed against the order dated 3-7-1989 passed in W. P. no. 21287 of 1981. One t. g. bhodha shetty applied for variation of stage carriage permit for operating two more additional trips between Bangalore to balathotapalli lying on inter-state route, which was granted by state transport authority, tamil nadu and countersigned by state authority. K. s. r. t. c. , objected for the counter-signature as the route lies in anekal pocket scheme. K. s. r. t. c. filed a writ petition against the variation counter signed by the s. t. a. and the petition was numbered as W. P. 36806 of 1982. The learned single judge placing reliance on the orders passed in W. P. nos. 36814 of 1982 and W. P. 36815 of 1982 which are the impugned orders in w. a. nos. 1641 and 1642 of 1989 dismissed the petition. in writ petition nos. 36814/82 and 36815/82, k. s. r. t. c. , challenged variation of conditions of stage carriage permit granted to two operators on the ground that route lies on anekal pocket scheme but they were dismissed, placing reliance on ratio decidendi of two cases decided in W. P. no. 3467/69 (dd: 19-11-70) and W. P. 1483/89, wherein this court held that anekal pocket scheme envisaged partial exclusion of private operators, and variations could be granted notwithstanding portion of route overlapping Bangalore anekal pocket scheme. Another operator by name b. v. nagarathnamma assailed the order of state transport appellate tribunal, wherein the tribunal set aside the order of grant as well as variations permitted on the route in question and the writ petition was numbered as W. P. 21287/81 and it was allowed in view of its earlier decision in w. ps. 36814 and 36815/82 decided on 12-6-82 and this order is subject-matter of w. a. no. 2018/89. 36814 and 36815/82 decided on 12-6-82 and this order is subject-matter of w. a. no. 2018/89. writ petitions 14902 to 14908/93 are filed by operators who were holding stage carriage permits with counter signatures on the route lying on the anekal pocket scheme, and whose permits and those counter signatures were set aside by virtue of the order dated 30-4-93 passed by karaataka state transport appellate tribunal, bangalore, in appeal no. 55/90 and r. p. 166/92 and other connected matters. Similarly other operators who had the benefit of the grant of permits, counter signatures and variations, aggrieved by the common order dated 30-4-93 filed writ petitions assailing the order and they are: W. P. 16951 to W. P. 16952/93 W. P. 18992 to W. P. 18993/93 W. P. 18948 to W. P. 18950/93 ( 2 ) THE common question involved in All these matters, is, whether anekal pocket scheme, is a scheme of complete exclusion or of partial exclusion under chapter iv-a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. ( 3 ) THE anekal pocket scheme was approved by government of mysore under section 68-d (2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called as 'the act'), and the same was published on 23-4-1959 under section 68-d (3) of the act and the relevant clauses of the scheme are: ( 21 ) THE question cropped up again and was considered by a bench of five judges in M/s. Adarsh travels bus service v State of U. P. reported in AIR 1986 SC 319 . The question that arose for consideration was, where a route was nationalised under chapter iv-a of the Motor Vehicles Act, whether a private operator with a permit to ply a stage carriage over another route but which has a common overlapping sector with the nationalised route can ply his vehicle over that part of the overlapping common sector, if he does not pick up or drop passengers on the overlapping part of the route. The court held at page 324, para 6:"a careful and diligent perusal of section 68-c, section 68-d (3) and section 68-f in the light of the definition of the expression 'route' in section 2 (28-a) appears to make it manifestly clear that once a scheme is published under section 68-d in relation to any area of 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. A necessary consequence of these provisions is that no private operator can operate his vehicle on any part or portion of a notified area or notified route unless authorised so to by the terms of the scheme itself. He may not operate on any part or portion of the notified route or area on the mere ground that the permit as originally granted to him covered the notified route or area. We are not impressed by the various submissions made on behalf of the appellants by their several counsel. The foremost argument was that based on great inconvenience which may be caused to the travelling public if a passenger is not allowed to travel, say, straight from a to b on a stage carriage, to ply which on the route a to b a person x has a permit, merely because a part of the route from c to d somewhere between the points a and b is part of a notified route. The answer to the question is that this is a factor which will necessarily be taken into consideration by the state transport undertaking before publishing the scheme under section 68-c by the government under section 68-d when considering the objections to the scheme and thereafter either by the state transport undertaking or by the government when the inconveniences experienced by the travelling public are brought to their notice. The question is one of weighing in the balance the advantages conferred on the public by the nationalisation of the route c-d against the inconveniences suffered by the public wanting to travel straight from a to b. On the otherhand, it is quite well known that under the guise of the so-called 'corridor restrictions' permits over long routes which cover shorter notified routes or 'overlapping' parts of notified routes are more often than not misutilised since it is next nigh impossible to keep a proper check at every point of the route. It is also well known that often times permits for plying stage carriages from a point a short distance beyond one terminus to a point a short distance beyond another terminus of a notified route have been applied for and granted subject to the so-called 'corridor restrictions' which are but mere ruses or traps to obtain permits and to frustrate the scheme. If indeed there is any need for protecting the travelling public from inconvenience as suggested by the learned counsel we have no doubt that the state transport undertaking and the government will make a sufficient provision in 'he scheme itself to avoid inconvenience being caused to the travelling public. " (emphasis supplied) the earlier decision in AIR 1974 SC 1940 was referred with approval. The court dissented from the decision found in (1975)1 SCR 493 . In the concluding para, the Supreme Court held:"we are, therefore, unable to see any merit in any of the civil appeals since none of the schemes placed before us contain any saving clause in favour of operators plying or wanting to ply stage carriages on common sectors. On the other hand we found that invariably there is a clause to the following effect: "no person other than the state government undertaking will be permitted to provide road transport services on the routes specified in paragraph 2 or any part thereof. In the face of a provision of this nature in the scheme totally prohibiting private operator from plying stage carriages on a whole or part of the notified routes, it is futile to contend that any of the appellants can claim to ply their vehicles on the notified routes or part of the notified routes. All the appeals and special leave petitions one therefore dismissed, with costs which we quantify at Rs. 2,500/- in each. All the appeals and special leave petitions one therefore dismissed, with costs which we quantify at Rs. 2,500/- in each. All the interim orders of this court which enabled the appellants to operate their vehicles on notified routes or part of notified routes or which enabled the appellants to apply for and obtain permits to so operate, with or without the so-called corridor restrictions are hereby vacated. Appeals dismissed. " ( 22 ) PRIVATE operators T. V. Nataraj and others challenged the order dated 10-4-1984 passed by this court in W. P. nos. 3496-98/82 and W. P. no. 3489-90 of 1979, before the Supreme Court the proceedings being numbered as civil appeal nos. 1198 to 1202 of 1985 wherein this court allowed the writ petitions filed by the state transport authority Karnataka holding that the draft scheme of anna. Transport corporation has provided for the exclusion of private operators only from terminus to terminus and that grant of permits to private operators on the inter-mediary sections of the routes included in the draft scheme as being not prohibited. The Supreme Court while disposing of the civil appeals passed the following order. Order reads:"having heard these appeals at some length, we do not find it necessary to pronounce upon the merits of the contentions urged in support of these appeals at this stage. All the contentions of the appellants against the decision of the High Court are left open to be decided, if necessary, at a later stage if any of the parties approaches this court in any of these cases. The Karnataka state transport authority shall, however, proceed to decide the cases which are now remanded to it keeping in view the decision of this court reported in M/s. Adarsh travels bus service and another v State of U. P. , 1985 (4) SCC 557 . "private operators have pleaded that since the time, the scheme pertaining to anekal pocket was approved, the authorities have understood that anekal scheme as being of partial exclusion and further the Supreme Court while dealing with cases pertaining to anekal scheme has also observed that scheme as being of partial exclusion and providing corridor facilities as being inconformity with the scheme. ( 23 ) THE counsel for the Karnataka state road transport corporation submitted that the k. s. r. t. c. , at no length of time has treated anekal scheme as being one of partial exclusion, but as a matter of fact has been taking the stand that scheme as being that of complete exclusion of private operators. He invites this court's attention to clause 3 of the scheme which reads:"the route or routes (with their starting points, terminal, intermediate stations and route length) in which the state transport undertaking will introduce its services to the exclusion of private operators. As in statement 1 appended. "the statement 1 appended denotes routes, intermediate point, route length number of buses to be operated, maximum and minimum and number of trips to be formed on each route. Further certain documents relating to map, statement of population and percentage of increase in vehicles, statement about vehicles, list of permits, agreement, copy of letter dated 2-7-1993 were filed during the course of arguments and contesting parties had no objection for receiving the same. The sum and substance of the documents produced is to highlight that k. s. r. t. c. is keeping pace with the demands of the public in collaboration with authorities of tamil nadu by virtue of inter-state agreement entered into. It was brought to the notice of the court that as early as in the year 1969 in writ petition no. 3647 of 1969, k. s. r. t. c. (the then mysore state road transport corporation) assailed the renewals granted to private operators. ( 24 ) IN writ petition no. 3647 of 1969, while disposing of the writ petition on 19-11-70 it was observed:"the question whether anekal pocket scheme provides for exclusion of private operators holding inter-state permits on the notified routes holding that inter-state permits on the notified routes was considered by this court in writ petition no. 484 of 1969. The petitioner therein was holder of an inter-state permit and transport authorities in mysore imposed a condition that he should not pick up or set down passengers on any part of the notified route. There also the corporation had contended that that petitioners permit should be curtailed in respect of the portion of his route overlapping the notified route under the anekal pocket scheme. There also the corporation had contended that that petitioners permit should be curtailed in respect of the portion of his route overlapping the notified route under the anekal pocket scheme. But that contention was negatived and this court held the scheme does not provide for complete exclusion of operation on notified routes by private operators holding inter-state permits. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the contention of the corporation that the state transport authority should not have renewed the inter-state permit between Bangalore and chikbennur but should have curtailed that permit between Bangalore and attibele must be rejected. " ( 25 ) WE have not come across any decision of the Supreme Court declaring the anekal pocket scheme as a scheme of partial exclusion. The decision in narayanappa 's case in AIR 1960 SC 1073 declares it to be a scheme of nationalising 14 routes. From this it cannot be said, scheme envisaged only a partial exclusion. Nowhere the scheme provide for imposing corridor restrictions enabling the private operators to ply on these 14 routes to reach destinations beyond the routes. ( 26 ) THE golden rule that has stood the test of time in the nationalisation of the routes is that section 68-c of the motor vehicles act empowers the state transport undertaking to exclude the private operators completely or partially from an area or route or part thereof in the scheme and getting an exclusive power to offer transport services in that area or route or part thereof. The scheme has to be looked into, to find out whether private operators are to be permitted to operate on the nationalised routes; if the scheme indicates that the state undertaking will introduce its services to the exclusion of private operators' there is no scope for the private operators to ply in the said routes, unless the scheme saves their rights elsewhere in the scheme. Making the permits ineffective for overlapping parts, amounts to partial exclusion of the private operators from that route. But when the scheme is specific regarding the exclusion of private operators, in respect of the routes (with their starting points, termini, intermediate stations and route length as found in clause 3 of anekal pocket scheme), the practice of making the permits ineffective for the overlapping part only is deprecated. But when the scheme is specific regarding the exclusion of private operators, in respect of the routes (with their starting points, termini, intermediate stations and route length as found in clause 3 of anekal pocket scheme), the practice of making the permits ineffective for the overlapping part only is deprecated. It was observed in adarsh travels case, AIR 1986 SC 319 as follows:"it is well known that under the guise of the so-called 'corridor restrictions' permits over longer routes or overlapping parts of notified routes are more often than not misutilised since it is next to nigh impossible to keep a proper check at every point or the route often times permits for plying stage carriages from a point of a short distance beyond one terminus to a point at a short distance beyond another terminus of a notified route have been applied for and granted subject to the so-called 'corridor restrictions' which are but mere ruses or traps to obtain permits and to frustrate the scheme. If indeed there is any need for protecting the travelling public from inconvenience the state transport undertaking and the government will have to make sufficient provisions in the scheme itself to avoid inconvenience being caused to the travelling public. " ( 27 ) THE other contentions advanced by the private operators regarding their having acquired right to ply their vehicles on the notified routes by virtue of doctrine of legitimate expectation and doctrine of promissory estoppel has no legal foundation in view of the declaration of law and principles evolved by the Supreme Court that there cannot be estoppel against law and that the scheme is nothing but law. ( 28 ) ANNEXURE 'm' in w. ps. 14902 to 14908 of 1993 is a proceeding of the r. ta. , kolar dated 7-12-1962, wherein request of the state undertaking (m. s. r. t. c.) to impose conditions on certain operators was considered. The contention of the m. s. r. t. c. that, in view of anekal pocket scheme, r. ta. Was competent to make those private permits ineffective by imposing conditions on the overlapping portion of the notified approved scheme, was accepted by the r. t. a. , kolar. Annexure 'n' is another proceeding of such nature, of r. t. a. , Bangalore dated 14-3-1963. Subject no. Was competent to make those private permits ineffective by imposing conditions on the overlapping portion of the notified approved scheme, was accepted by the r. t. a. , kolar. Annexure 'n' is another proceeding of such nature, of r. t. a. , Bangalore dated 14-3-1963. Subject no. 4 is alleged to touch the routes notified under anekal pocket scheme, r. t. a. accepted the scheme of the k. s. r. t. c. to impose conditions to be given the overlapping portion. One of the permit holder was webster in the above proceedings and we have already referred to the observation of the full bench of this court wherein, it was held that webster's case (before the supreme court) did not involve the real question as to whether anekal pocket scheme was a scheme of complete exclusion or not the representative of the k. s. r. t. c urged the need to impose corridor restrictions in respect of the routes notified under anekal pocket scheme. In subsequent proceedings of the years commenced in or about the year 1970 etc. , the state undertaking had been contending that the anekal pocket scheme was a scheme of complete exclusion. (vide writ appeals of the k. s. r. t. c. which are decided in this batch ). Further, scheme being the law and other relevant principles are once again elaborated in adarsh travels case, AIR 1986 SC 319 , the state undertaking cannot be tied down by the application of the rule of estoppel. ( 29 ) IT was also contended that the scheme is of the year 1959 and in the course of these years it has become outmoded and therefore, requires to be nullified. Principle statedby the Supreme Court in the case of motor general traders, AIR 1984 SC 121 was relied upon. We are of the view that material placed before the court is insufficient to consider this contention and consequently we do not express any opinion either as to the permissibility of such a contention or as to its merits. ( 30 ) WE are of the view that the impugned order of the state appellate tribunal is based on a correct understanding of the law. Consequently, the writ appeals filed by the k. s. r. t. c. are allowed; the writ petitions of the private operators are dismissed. No order as to costs. ( 30 ) WE are of the view that the impugned order of the state appellate tribunal is based on a correct understanding of the law. Consequently, the writ appeals filed by the k. s. r. t. c. are allowed; the writ petitions of the private operators are dismissed. No order as to costs. order on oral application an oral application is made seeking certificate for appeal to supreme court; since we have only applied the principles stated in adarsh travels case we do not think we can certify these matters as involving questions requiring consideration by the supreme court. However, since the private operators have been plying for several years, the operation of our orders are stayed for a period of 10 weeks so that the status quo as on today prior to this judgment shall continue as far as these parties are concerned. --- *** --- .