Honble CHAUHAN, J.–In this special appeal, there has been a difference of opinion amongst the Honble Judges and, therefore, a reference under Section 61-A of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 has been made to determine the following two issues:- ``(1) Whether the R.S.R.T.C. is entitled for any opportunity of hearing when the permit is granted on a route which is over- lapping on the nationalised route or does it affect the interests of the Corporation ? (2) Whether the Notifications dated 3.8.1976 and 12.4.79 permitting overlapping of 10 Kms. in respect of each of the notified route or it is restricted to total area of 10 Kms. of the notified area of route ? (2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case, succinctly stated, are that a Draft Scheme under the provisions of Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called as ``the Old Act) had been published in the Official Gazette on 3.4.1976 in respect of various routes including (i) Udaipur to Badi Sadri via Dabok, Bhanwar, Bhindar, Kanod, Bansi; (ii) Udaipur to Fatehnagar via Debari, Bhater, Akola, Bhopalgarh and allied routes; and (iii) Udaipur to Chittorgarh via Mangalwad and other routes. After completing the formalities and requirements of law, the said Schemes were approved and notified on 11.6.85 under the provisions of Section 68-D (3) of the Old Act. The Scheme provided for complete exclusion of private operators. However, the last part of para No.4 reads as under:- ``That the permit-holders of the non-notified routes shall be permitted to over-lap the portion of the notified route to the extent of 10 Kms. provided there is no other route available to the private operators. However, he shall ply with corridor restrictions, i.e., with the rider that he shall neither pick-up nor drop any passenger on the over-lapping notified route. (3). Similarly, a Scheme for Udaipur-Ajmer route stood approved and notified under Section 68-D (3) of the Old Act in 1975. The approved Scheme in respect of Udaipur-Ajmer route has not been placed on record. But, even if the said Scheme does not permit any person to ply its vehicles overlapping the said route, it stood modified by the Notifications dated 3.8.76 and 12.4.79. The approved Scheme in respect of Udaipur-Ajmer route has not been placed on record. But, even if the said Scheme does not permit any person to ply its vehicles overlapping the said route, it stood modified by the Notifications dated 3.8.76 and 12.4.79. Section 68-E (1) of the Old Act provided for the particular mode for modification of the approved or draft sche- me and the law mandatorily required to follow the said procedure, otherwise the modification would stand vitiated. (Vide Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in J.V. Kondala Rao vs. Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (1). But the Act was amended vide Act No. 56 of 1969 with effect from 2.3.70 and Sub-section (2) was added, enabling the State Government to modify the Scheme if required in public interest after giving opportunity of hearing to the State Road Transport Corporation and other persons, who are likely to be affected by the proposed modification. Sub-section (2) provides for an independent power of the State and does not require following the procedure provided for in Sub-section (1) of the Act. (Vide Khushal Dass vs. State of Rajasthan and others (2). Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the ``New Act) provides for the same. The said Notifications read as under:- ``Notification dated 3.8.76:- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Scheme of Nationalisation notified under Sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Motor Vehi- cles Act, 1939, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, may if it considers necessary in the public interest, allow to the permit holders other than the State Transport Undertaking, overlapping of the notified area, route or portion thereof, which shall in no case exceed 10 Kms. with the con- dition that such permit holders shall not pick up or set down passengers on such overlapped portions; Provided that the total nationalised route shall not be less than five times the length of overlapped portion and Provided further that there is no other route available to the private operators except the overlapped route. with the con- dition that such permit holders shall not pick up or set down passengers on such overlapped portions; Provided that the total nationalised route shall not be less than five times the length of overlapped portion and Provided further that there is no other route available to the private operators except the overlapped route. Notification dated 12.4.79:- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Scheme of nationalisation notified under Sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, may, if it considers necessary in the public interest, allow to the permit holders other than the State Transport Undertaking overlapping of the notified area, route or portion thereof which shall in no case exceed 10 Kms. with the con- dition that such permit holders shall not pick up or set down passengers on such overlapped portions: Provided that the total nationalised route shall not be less than five times the length of overlapped portion; Provided further that there is no other route available to the private operators except the overlapped portion. (4). Since then the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called ``the R.S.R.T.C.) is plying its vehicles. Respondent No.2 applied for opening of a new route from Fatehnagar to Dhariwad via Chhangeri, Khempur, Dharwad, Vallabhnagar, Bhatewar, Navaliya, Mod, Kherada village, Amarpur, Ban- sra, Kedariya, Heenta, Bhinder and other stations and applied for the grant of permit on the said route. By Resolution dated 30.3.91 the Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter called ``the R.T.A.) opened a new route which runs to about 120 kms. in length over-lapping three notified routes and resolved to grant a permanent stage carriage permit to respondent No.2 on the said route. (5). Being aggrieved, the R.S.R.T.C. preferred a writ petition before this Court urging that the respondent No.2 has been granted a permanent stage-carriage permit by the respondent No.1 from Fatehnagar to Dhariyawad over-lapping the notified routes as under:- (a) 8 kms. over-lapping on Udaipur-Fatehnagar route which stood notified since 1985; (b) 12 kms. (9+3 Kharoda to Bansra and Bhinder Railway Station to Bhinder village) over-lapping on Udaipur-Badi Sadri route, which stood notified in 1985; (c) 5 kms. (from Bhatewar to Nawania) over-lapping on Udaipur- Ajmer route which stood notified in 1975. (6). over-lapping on Udaipur-Fatehnagar route which stood notified since 1985; (b) 12 kms. (9+3 Kharoda to Bansra and Bhinder Railway Station to Bhinder village) over-lapping on Udaipur-Badi Sadri route, which stood notified in 1985; (c) 5 kms. (from Bhatewar to Nawania) over-lapping on Udaipur- Ajmer route which stood notified in 1975. (6). Thus, according to the petitioner-appellant, the respondent No.2 had been granted permit over-lapping the notified route to the extent of 25 kms. in total and, thus, the Resolution of the R.T.A. was in contravention of the Scheme and the two Notifications dated 3.8.76 and 12.4.79 providing for over-lapping of notified route to the extent of 10 kms. with corridor restrictions. (7). Respondent No.2 submitted that the total distance over- lapping all the three notified routes was to the extent of 19.5 kms. The learned Single Judge, vide judgment and order dated 10.4.96 dismissed the writ petition holding that the respondent No.1 had competence to grant the permit over-lapping 10 kms. on each notified route with corridor restriction and its Resolution dated 30.3.1991 did not violate the terms of the Schemes or the said two Notifications dated 3.8.76 and 12.4.79. (8). Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the Special Appeal No. 339/1996 under the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. The appeal was heard. Honble Mr. Jus- tice V.K. Singhal came to the conclusion that RSRTC was an aggrieved party and it ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing by the R.T.A. at the time of grant of permit in favour of the respondent No.2; R.T.A. was not competent to grant permit exceeding ten kilometers on all the notified routes and thus the resolution dated 30.3.1991 was passed by the R.T.A. exceeding its competence. Honble Singhal, J. also considered the issue of opening the new route and held that R.T.A. had opened the new route without complying with the statutory provisions. The appeal was allowed directing the R.T.A. to reconsider the case afresh after according an opportunity of hearing to the R.S.R.T.C. within a period of three months. However, the another member of the Division Bench (Honble Mr. Justice J.C. Verma) held that as the issue of opening the new route had not been agitated before the learned Single Judge, it was not permissible for the Corporation to raise it before the Division Bench and as over-lapping to the extent of 10 Kms. However, the another member of the Division Bench (Honble Mr. Justice J.C. Verma) held that as the issue of opening the new route had not been agitated before the learned Single Judge, it was not permissible for the Corporation to raise it before the Division Bench and as over-lapping to the extent of 10 Kms. was permissible on each notified route, respondent No.1 did not violate the terms of the Schemes or the said Notifications. Verma, J. dismissed the appeal. Hence this reference. (9). Heard Mr. Sangeet Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant and Mr. R.P. Deve, and Mr. B.L. Maheshwari for the respondents. (10). There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that once a route has been notified under the provisions of Section 68-D (3) of the Old Act or under Section 100 (3) of the New Act, no person other than those who have specifically been permitted under the Scheme are permitted to ply their vehicles on the route for the reason that a Scheme under the said provisions of the Act is a law within the meaning of Art. 13 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court in H.C. Narainappa vs. State of Mysore (3) and Chaudhary Khazan Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (4). By virtue of the provisions of Section 68-B of the Old Act and its corresponding provisions of Section 98 of the New Act, the Scheme of Nationalisation would over-ride the other provisions of the Statute. (vide T.N. Raghunatha Reddy vs. State Transport Authority (5) and S.A. Abdul Kha- ddar Sahib vs. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and others (6). The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in M/s. Adarsh Travels Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others (7), held that no person other than those authorised under the Scheme, can ply the vehicle on the notified route. In Sumer Chand Sharma vs. State of U.P. and others (8), the Apex Court has observed that provisions of the Scheme require strict adherence and authorities are required to comply with the terms of th Scheme and consider the applications for grant or renewal only in consonance with the Scheme. Same view has been taken by the Honble Supreme Court in Smt. TPK Thilagavathy vs. R.T.A. Periyar District (9). Same view has been taken by the Honble Supreme Court in Smt. TPK Thilagavathy vs. R.T.A. Periyar District (9). In Gujraj Singh vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others (10), the Apex Court has held that the approved Scheme is a ``self-con- tained and self-operative scheme. It is law by itself. Same view has been taken by the Honble Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation etc. vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others (11). (11). It is, also, well settled law that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for enforcing the statutory right or when there is a com- plaint by the petitioner that there is a breach of statutory duty on the part of the respondent. Therefore, there must be judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted to. The Court can enforce the performance of a statutory duty by public bodies through its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such writ jurisdiction. (State of Kerala vs. K.G. Madhavn Pillai (12); State of Kerala vs. Smt. A. Laxmikutty (13); Mani Surat Jain and others vs. State of Haryana (14); Calcutta Gas Company (Proprety) Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal and others (15) and Smt. Rampati Jaiswal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (16). (12). In Rajendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (17), the Apex Court held that every violation of mandatory provisions of law does not furnish a ground for the High Court to interfere in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is settled position of law that writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 ``is not intended to facilitate the avoidance of an obligation. In Union of India and others vs. Orient Interprises and another (18), the Apex Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable unless the relief sought therein is backed by a statutory right at the relevant time. Same view has been taken in Amitabh Bachchan Corporation Ltd. vs. Mahila Jagran Morcha (19). (13). In Union of India and others vs. Orient Interprises and another (18), the Apex Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable unless the relief sought therein is backed by a statutory right at the relevant time. Same view has been taken in Amitabh Bachchan Corporation Ltd. vs. Mahila Jagran Morcha (19). (13). In Afsan Jahan Begam and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (20), the Apex Court placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Adarsh Travels Bus Service (supra) and observed as under:- ``In this view of the matter, the only relaxation from the frozen notified route or the area from the Scheme, is as provided in the Scheme itself. Every operator on any route intersecting on the notified route has, on necessity, to ply the vehicle strictly in confirmity with the restrictive corridor shelter and no more. The relaxation is not meant to sabotage the approved scheme but to sub-serve public interest ....... The petitioner cannot be given any relief. But if they have any right under the modified scheme then that would be a matter appropriately to be gone into by the R.T.A. or S.T.A., as the case may be, after due notice to the State Transport Undertaking and all other interested persons. (14). Similar view has been taken by the Honble Supreme Court in C. Kasturi and others vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and another (21). The same view has been taken by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Mithilesh Rani vs. R.T.A., Dehradun and others (22), wherein the Court observed as under:- ``It is only the respondents No.3 and 4 who are operating on a route which partially overlaps the route concerned herein, the has chosen to come forward......... This aspect will become relevant if and when the State Transport Undertaking objects to the grant of permit (overlapping the notified route). (15). Similarly, in Charanjit Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and others (23), this Court has observed that whenever a permit is granted overlapping a notified route, ``it is the R.S.R.T.C. or the State Road Transport Undertaking which alone is the aggrieved party and it can object to the grant of permit overlapping the notified route. (16). (15). Similarly, in Charanjit Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and others (23), this Court has observed that whenever a permit is granted overlapping a notified route, ``it is the R.S.R.T.C. or the State Road Transport Undertaking which alone is the aggrieved party and it can object to the grant of permit overlapping the notified route. (16). In Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Shri Palvi Govis (24), the Karnataka High Court has held that when a permit is being granted overlapping the notified route, notice must be given to the Corporation. Same view has been taken by this Court in the case of Mohan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2795/1998 decided on 7.9.1998) (25). (17). The issue of opening the new route over-lapping the notified route is also no more res integra. The issue was considered by the Honble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Anwar Ahmed and others (27), wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:- ``Thus, the crucial question is whether the new route can be introduced by fusing two notified routes and temporary permit sought to be obtained on carved-out route ? This device is obviously impermissible to enter into frozen area or route or portion thereof through back-door. The Scheme is law by itself and unless it is varied accord- ing to law, no private operator has any right to camouflage any device to obtain temporary permit. (18). There can be no dispute to the legal proposition that a question of law, which does not require any investigation on facts, can be raised in legal proceedings at any stage and, thus, to hold that the appellant is not permitted to raise the issue of opening the new route overlapping the notified routes as the same issue had not been agitated before the learned Single Judge, runs counter to the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court from time and again. While considering the case in Ratan Lal Sharma vs. Managing Committee (27), the Apex Court placed reliance on its earlier judgment in A.M. Allison vs. State of Assam (28); A. St. While considering the case in Ratan Lal Sharma vs. Managing Committee (27), the Apex Court placed reliance on its earlier judgment in A.M. Allison vs. State of Assam (28); A. St. Aruna- chalam Pillai vs. Southern Roadways Ltd. (29) and Cantonment Board, Ambala vs. Pyara Lal (30) and observed as under:- ``Generally, a point not raised before the Tribunal or Administrative Authorities, may not be allowed to be raised for the first time in the writ proceedings.........particularly when the plea sought to be raised for the first time in a writ proceeding requires investigation of facts. But if the plea.....goes to the route of the question and is based on admitted and uncontroverted facts and does not require any further investigation into the question of facts, the High Court is not only jus- tified in entertaining the plea but in the anxiety to do justice which is the paramount consideration of the Court, it is only desirable that a litigant should not be shunt-out from raising such plea which goes to the route of the lis involved. (19). The same view has been taken by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Dr. Anupam Gupta (31); Bhanwar Lal vs. T.K.A. Abdul Karim (32); Rajeshwariamma vs. Joseph (33); Kanwar Singh vs. State of Haryana and others (34); State of Orissa vs. M/s Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd., (35) and Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vs. U.P. Forest Corporation (36). However, this is a case which requires consideration at the initial stage by the R.T.A. after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant Corporation for the reason that if the approach to sabotage the scheme is allowed to be put to action, it would prove to be destructive of the wholesome effort towards nationalisation of routes, which is generally undertaken in public interest. (20). What cannot be done ``per directum is not permissible to be done per obliquum meaning thereby, whatever is prohibited by law to be done, cannot legally be effected by an indirect and circuitous conrivance on the principle of ``quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad illud. (21). In Jagir Singh vs. Ranbir Singh (37), the Apex Court has observed that an Authority cannot be permitted to evade a law by ``shift or contrivance. (21). In Jagir Singh vs. Ranbir Singh (37), the Apex Court has observed that an Authority cannot be permitted to evade a law by ``shift or contrivance. While deci- ding the said case, the Honble Supreme Court placed reliance on the judgment in Fox vs. Bishop of Chester (38); wherein it has been observed as under:- ``To carry out effectually the object of a statute, it must be construed as to defeat all attempts to do, or avoid doing in an indirect or circutious manner that which it has prohibited or enjoined. (22). Therefore, a new route cannot be opened only to sobbotage the Scheme which the R.T.A. or the S.T.A. cannot do otherwise. (23). In Smt. Praveen Ansari and others vs. S.T.A.T. and others (39), the Apex Court has held that neither the Authority nor the Court must ever loose sight of fact that the primary consideration must be the service available to the commuters as the over-all consideration of service is for their benefit and their interest should never be over-looked even for a moment. In Adarsh Travels (supra), the Apex Court has observed as under:- ``When preparing and publishing the scheme under Section 68-C and approving or modifying the Scheme under Section 68-D, care must be taken to protect, as far as possible, the interest of the travelling public, who could, in the past, travel from one point to another without having to change from one service to another en-route. This can always be done by appropriate clauses exempting the operators already having permits over common sector from the Scheme and by incorporating appropriate conditional clauses in the Scheme to enable them to ply their vehicles over common sectors without picking up or setting down passengers on the common sectors. If such a course is not feasible, the State Legislature may intervene and provide some other alternative...... There may be other methods of not inconveniencing through passengers but that is entirely a matter for the State Legislature, the State Government and the State Transport Undertaking. But we do wish to emphasise that good and sufficient care must be taken to see that the travelling public is not to be needlessly inconvinced. (24). There may be a case where a non-notified route is covered upto few kilometres on both the termini by the notified routes. But we do wish to emphasise that good and sufficient care must be taken to see that the travelling public is not to be needlessly inconvinced. (24). There may be a case where a non-notified route is covered upto few kilometres on both the termini by the notified routes. If the contention of the Corporation is accepted, it would cause great hardship to the travelling passengers and they would have to get the vehicle of the Corporation on first terminus, and change the vehicle when non-notified route starts and again to change a vehicle when overlapping of the notified route on other terminus starts. This could not have been the intention of the legislature while issuing the said notifications. Same view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Tara Chand Ram Ratan vs. R.T.A. and others, decided on 28.8.1987 (40). (25). It is settled legal position that statute must be so construed as to make it effective and operative, on the principle ``ut res magis valeat quam pereat (Vide Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chittorgarh vs. Mahaveer Oil Mill (41). In Tinsukhia Electric Supply Ltd. vs. State of Assam (42), the Honble Supreme Court held that it was the duty of the Court ``to make what it can of the statute, knowing that the statutes are meant to be operative and not inept and nothing short of impossibility should allow a Court to declare a statute unworkable. While deciding the said case the Court placed reliance on the judgment in Whitney vs. IRC (43), wherein it has been observed as under:- `` A statute is designed to be workable, and the interpretation thereof by a Court should be to secure the object, unless crucial omission or clear direction makes that end unattainable. (26). While interpreting the Statutory provision, the Court must look to the object which the enactment seeks to achieve and, therefore, a purposive approach is necessary. (Vide S. Gopal Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (44), Tej Kumar Balkrishna Ruia vs. A.K. Menon and another (45). (27). If the above referred to issues are examined in view of the above, it is abundantly clear that the said notifications provide for relaxation to overlap the part of the notified route with corridor restriction, in the interest of travelling public and to avoid its inconvenience of changing the vehicles etc. (27). If the above referred to issues are examined in view of the above, it is abundantly clear that the said notifications provide for relaxation to overlap the part of the notified route with corridor restriction, in the interest of travelling public and to avoid its inconvenience of changing the vehicles etc. but the relaxation cannot be granted in a way, which may sobotage the scheme itself or be violative of the terms and conditions of the scheme or said notifications. The Honble Supreme Court has held that in such a case Corporation be given a notice and opportunity of hearing before granting any permit on a route overlapping the part of a notified route for the reason that grant of such a permit may not only adversely affect the interest of the Corporation for whose benefit the Scheme has been framed but may violate the terms and conditions of the Scheme which is a law within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution of India. The R.S.R.T.C. can dispute the facts before the R.T.A. or the S.T.A., particularly regarding the extent of over-lapping route, i.e. common sector. In the instant case, according to the appellant, it has overlapped one scheme to the extent of 12 kms. while according to the respondent No.2 it is only 10 kms. This factual issue can be determined only by the R.T.A./S.T.A. after affording an opportunity or hearing to the R.S.R.T.C. giving it a chance to adduce evidence in support of its factual averments. (28). As the Scheme stood amended under Section 68-E (2) of the Act in the public interest and the modified scheme is also a law within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution, it has to be given a meaningful effect, which may serve the public interest. Moreover, the said notifications are in conformity and consonance with the Constitution Bench judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Adarsh Travels (supra) and has to be considered in the light of the observation made therein. Therefore, considering the interest of the travelling public supreme, it is required to hold that the overlapping upto the extent of 10 kms. is permissible on each notified route and not in total if it overlaps several notified routes. (29). The contention of Mr. Therefore, considering the interest of the travelling public supreme, it is required to hold that the overlapping upto the extent of 10 kms. is permissible on each notified route and not in total if it overlaps several notified routes. (29). The contention of Mr. Lodha that term ``permit-holders used in the said two notifications refers to only the persons having non-temporary stage-carriage permits prior to the nationalisation and, thus, R.T.A./S.T.A. are not competent to grant new permits after opening a new route, is untenable for the reason that the notifications in question have been issued to remove the inconvenience of the travelling public and if the said terms refer only to the then existing permit-holders, there was no need to issue the said notifications as they could have been accom- modated in the original scheme with the corridor restrictions. This view is fortified by the Division Bench judgments of this Court in Sanwal Das vs. R.T.A., Jaipur and others (46) and Trara Chand (supra), wherein it has been held that the expression ``permit holders used in the modified scheme could not be ``restricted to existing permit-holders only, but the expression includes within its fold all permit-holders irrespective of the fact whether they were existing permit- holders or were new grantees of permit. (30). While interpreting the provisions of Section 5 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called ``the Act of 1976), the Honble Supreme Court in Hindustan Transport Company vs. State of U.P. and others (47), has explained and held that the expression ``permit-holders meant persons holding permits on the whole or part of the route on the date of nationalisation and it would not cover any person who was granted permit subsequent of finalisation of the Scheme under the provisions of Section 68 (3) of the Act. Same view was subsequently reiterated by the Honble Apex Court in Sumer Chand Sharma and others vs. State of U.P. (48). But it was altogether held in an entirely different context as Section 5 of the Act of 1976 enables the competent authority to grant authorisation to ply vehicles on the whole or part of the notified route to the then existing transport operators, i.e., persons holding permits over the whole or part of the notified route on the date of notification. (31). (31). The instant case is entirely distinguishable from the above referred two cases as the Act of 1976 was enacted, as is evident from its Preamble, ``to make certain provisions in respect of the existing permits......and in relation to the Schemes. (32). The provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1976 empower the competent authority to modify a Scheme providing for a complete exclusion of private operators into a Scheme providing for partial exclusion and as Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 provides that such modification would be valid for the period, for which such authorisation remains in force and the Scheme shall be deemed modified to the extent of authorisation. Moreover, Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, 1976 provides for imposition of the charges payable to the Corporation by the permit-holders for authorisation having regard to the nature and class of route, the distance covered, the seating capacity of the vehicle and other relevant factors. The two notifications, involved herein, have been issued to remove the inconvenience of travelling public and they provide for a condition that the notified route cannot be overlapped to an extent more than 1/5th of its total length. Therefore, the notifications have been issued to achieve an entirely different purpose and the aforesaid two judgments have no bearing in the instant case. (33). Thus, in view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that grant of a permit on a route overlapping a part of the notified route affects the interest of the R.S.R.T.C. and it is entitled for an opportunity of hearing when a permit is so granted. The Notifications dated 3.8.1976 and 14.4.79 permit the overlapping of 10 kms. in respect of each of the notified routes. (34). Thus, the appeal is partly allowed and the R.T.A. is directed to reconsider the whole case after giving an opportunity of hearing to appellant-petitioner RSRTC within a period of three months from today and the appellant-petitioner is directed to submit a certified copy of this judgment and order before the Secretary, R.T.A. within a period of two weeks from today. Thus, the reference is answered accordingly.