Y. BHASKAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the Karnataka state road transport corporation (in short, 'ksrtc') assailing the judgment of the learned single judge in allowing the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are, that respondent 1 applied for the grant of stage permit on the route kundur to shimoga, shimoga to basavapatna, basavapatna to shimoga and shimoga to kundur. Permit was granted on 29-7-1993. That is challenged before the appellate tribunal by respondents 4 to 6. The grant of permit was set aside stating that overlapping is there to the extent of 3. 6 kms. And the scheme is exclusively reserved in favour of ksrtc. Assailing that Order, the first respondent filed a writ petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED single judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that, some other operators are also operating on the same overlapping route. Therefore non-permitting respondent 1 will be discriminatory. Against that, ksrtc filed this appeal. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that the route is exclusively reserved in favour of ksrtc by a scheme published, except the operators who are operating on the date of publication of the scheme to the extent of overlapping indicated in the scheme itself. Therefore, allowing the writ petition amounts to granting permit to respondent 1 in violation of the terms of the scheme. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for respondent 1 contended that, overlapping is a river bridge. Without crossing the river bridge one is not able to go other side. Therefore, it cannot be said overlapping. It is only for the purpose of crossing the bridge. There are no merits in the appeal. Hence appeal liable to be dismissed. ( 6 ) IN view of the contentions the only point that arises for consideration is: "whether the grant of permit in favour of respondent 1 is valid"? ( 7 ) SECTION 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows : ( 8 ) AS per the above section, permission has to be granted as per the scheme published under the act. In this case, the scheme was published by a notification dated 18th march, 1967. ( 7 ) SECTION 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows : ( 8 ) AS per the above section, permission has to be granted as per the scheme published under the act. In this case, the scheme was published by a notification dated 18th march, 1967. Clause (d) of the said scheme reads as follows: ( 9 ) BY reading of the above clause of the scheme, it is evident that the scheme is reserved for ksrtc for all the routes to the exclusion of other persons, except existing operators to the extent of overlapping indicated in the scheme. In respect of honnali-basavapatna, overlapping for existing operators is 21/2 miles. Even this overlapping is permitted to only existing operators on the date of publication of the scheme, i. e. , 18-3-1967. Therefore, after 18-3-1967, no new permit can be granted on the notified route violating the terms of the scheme. Even accepting the contention of the learned counsel for respondent 1 that, for crossing the river-bridge, overlapping is there, but it cannot be said to be an overlapping, because the distance is 3. 6 kms. And the same is also prohibited under the scheme. It is immaterial whether overlapping is on the route or overbridge, the overlapping cannot be 3. 6 kms. There is no dispute that the permit in favour of the appellant or respondent 1 was granted in 1993. This scheme was already considered and referred by this court in N. Basavappa v Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and others, by taking the same view. This judgment also fortifies our view. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel also relied on a decision of the learned single judge in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others. In that case, the crossing of the road was 200 mtrs. And not the overlapping as in the present case. Further the facts of that case are quite different from this case. The transport authorities itself granted an alternative route cancelling permit on the notified route. The facts and circumstances of that case will not apply to the facts of this case. Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned single judge is hereby quashed. --- *** --- .