G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant is the holder of a stage carriage permit on the route between bangalore and hosur via agara, sarjapura and bagalur, for six single trips. In the present appeal he is aggrieved of the Order dated 9-7-1997 passed by the learned single judge directing the appellant that he can operate only on the aforesaid route covered by his permit and not on the deviated route permitted by the state transport authority (in short "the s. t. a. " ). ( 2 ) THERE is no dispute about the foundational facts which lie in a short compass. Admittedly, for travelling from bangalore to hosur there are two routes from madiwala checkpost, which is located at a distance of 8 kms from bangalore. One goes via agara-sarjapura-bagalur and the other via hebbagodi-chandapura-attibele (hereinafter referred to as route nos. 1 and 2 respectively ). Admittedly, the said routes are notified routes under the anekal pocket scheme approved on 23-9-1959 and published under Section 66-d (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (in short "1939 act") and modified by notification dated 3-1-1994 published under Section 102 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "1988 act" ). It is also not in dispute that the scheme as originally published was of complete exclusion i. e. , on the said routes the private operators could not at all have operated as held by a bench of this court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v Narayana rao. ( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the state government in Order to remedy the hardships of the existing inter-state private operators, like the present appellant, modified the scheme under the aforesaid notification dated 3-1-1994. The modification as notified is to the following effect: "modification of scheme of state transport undertakings, anekal Section in the approved scheme published in notification No. Hd80 (2) tmf 59, dated 15th april, 1959, under sub-section (3) of Section 68 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in mysore gazette on 23rd april, 1959, for item No. 3, the following shall be substituted, namely: ( 4 ) IN the present case admittedly on the date of publication of the above modification of the scheme, the appellant was operating on route No. 1 at six single trips per day as is evident from the s. ta. 's order. 's order. Out of the said six single trips, first four single trips were based on the counter signature of the s. t. a. , tamil nadu, while the other two single trips were being operated on the strength of the temporary permits granted and issued by the s. t. a. from time to time. As noticed by the s. t. a. , the appellant was operating all the single trips right from the year 1982 on the basis of temporary permits granted from time to time till upto 23-11-1996. Accordingly, the s. t. a. held the appellant to be a saved operator within the meaning of the proviso of the modified scheme and as per the application filed by him permission was accorded for deviation and inclusion of a new route from hosur to bellur via i. s. d. o. industrial estate and state border in respect of two single trips under Order dated 23-11-1996. Since this deviation of the route resulted in overlapping of route No. 2 notified under the anekal pocket scheme from madiwala checkpost to attibele (27 kms.), therefore the said Order came to be challenged by the Karnataka state road transport corporation by filing a writ petition wherein the impugned Order came to be passed by the learned single judge. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned Order primarily on the ground that keeping in view the savings permitted under the proviso of the modified scheme, it was competent on the part of the s. t. a. to permit a deviation of the route even if the same was notified as a part of the approved scheme, so long as the starting and terminating point remains unaltered. ( 6 ) IN Order to weigh the rival contentions it is better to first refer to some of the Supreme Court judgments which in our opinion has conclusively decided the issue like the one at hand. In M/s. Adarsh Travels Bus Service v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court had the occasion of considering the effect of an approved scheme and the corresponding right of the private operators in the notified area or the routes. In M/s. Adarsh Travels Bus Service v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court had the occasion of considering the effect of an approved scheme and the corresponding right of the private operators in the notified area or the routes. It has been held that: ( 7 ) AFTER referring to the above decision the Supreme Court again in the case of Smt. Afsar Jahan Begum v State of Mmadhya Pradesh and others, has held that. ( 8 ) RECENTLY in the case of C. Kasturi and others v Secretary, Regional Transport authority and others, the Supreme Court has again summarised the law on the issue at hand. It has been held that the schemes covered by chapter iv-a are now saved by the 1988 ACT in chapter iv unless it is modified according to the said ACT and continues to be valid law under the 1988 act. It has further been held that. ( 9 ) A reading of the above provision makes it clear that the inter-state private operators who were operating on the notified routes covered by the anekal pocket scheme on any length thereof on 3-1-1994 i. e. , on the date of publication of the modified scheme on the strength of valid permits were allowed to continue to operate in relation to, inter alia, such trips as were specified in the permit on the routes indicated in statement-i. Therefore, as held by the Supreme Court in c. Kasturi's case, supra, their rights to operate on the notified route or portion thereof are restricted to the extent they were operating on the date of publication of the modified scheme. Even the s. t. a. can have no jurisdiction to permit any deviation from the same as has sought to be done by it in the present case. At the cost of repetition it has to be held that since the scheme framed, approved and notified under chapter iv of the 1988 act, has itself been held to be a law, the s. t. a. cannot claim any authority to keep passing orders by violating the provisions thereof. Accordingly, in our opinion the Order of the s. t. a. cannot be sustained and has rightly been quashed, by the learned single judge. Accordingly, in our opinion the Order of the s. t. a. cannot be sustained and has rightly been quashed, by the learned single judge. ( 10 ) BEFORE parting, we may add few words regarding grant of temporary permits and its validity as enunciated by the Supreme Court in c. Kasturi's case, supra. We find it necessary to do so since the s. t. a. has specifically noticed that the appellant had been operating its vehicle on the basis of temporary permits granted since 1982. In paragraph 13 of the judgment it has been held by the apex court that: ( 11 ) IN our opinion it is high time for the s. t. a. to take notice of the law laid down by the apex court as also by this court in various judgments or else on some day keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Baradakanta Mishra v Bhimsen Dixit, they may find themselves trapped in a contempt proceedings. ( 12 ) WITH the said observations and directions the appeal is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .