ALTAMAS KABIR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal at the instance of the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th February, 1998, passed by the learned single Judge on the writ application (Matter No. 1413 of 1994) and the subsequent contempt application (C. C. No. 260 of 1996) of Shri Milan Kumar Puri, allowing the writ application and disposing of the contempt application by directing the State Transport Authority and its authorities to issue permanent permit to the petitioner on the route Calcutta to Mazna. ( 2 ) THE said route is to a large extent aligned to the notified route Calcutta to Digha. In 1987, the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 seems to have applied for a permanent stage carriage permit on the said route, but, inasmuch as, the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, remained silent over the mater, he moved several writ petitions and pursuant to orders passed therein he was granted successive temporary permits on the said route. ( 3 ) ON 20th March, 1990. the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 made a fresh application to the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, for grant of a permanent stage carriage permit on the aforesaid route. As the said application also remained undisposed of, the writ petitioner once again moved a writ petition which was disposed of by a learned single Judge with a direction upon the said authority to consider the petitioner's application within a specified time after giving the writ petitioner an opportunity of hearing under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said application was rejected by the State Transport Authority on the ground that under Section 80 of the said Act, the State Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to grant such permit. The writ pertitioner/respondent No. 1 moved yet another writ petition against the said decision of the State Transport Authority. The matter went up to the Appeal Court which by its order dated 28th Sept. 1993, quashed the resolution of the State Transport Authority dated 5th Nov. 1990, and once again directed the said authority to consider the writ petitioner's application dated 20th March, 1990, for grant of a permanent stage carriage permit on the route Calcutta to Mazna in accordance with Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 1993, quashed the resolution of the State Transport Authority dated 5th Nov. 1990, and once again directed the said authority to consider the writ petitioner's application dated 20th March, 1990, for grant of a permanent stage carriage permit on the route Calcutta to Mazna in accordance with Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. ( 4 ) PURSUANT to the order of the Division Bench the matter was reconsidered by the State Transport Authority which by its resolution dated 15th Dec. 1993, rejected the writ petitioner's application for grant of permanent permit on the route Calcutta to Mazna on the ground that the major portion of the route is aligned to the notified route Calcutta to Digha. ( 5 ) THE said decision of the State Transport Authority was again challenged by the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 and the matter once again went up to the Division Bench which quashed the said decision and redirected the said authority to consider the writ petitioner's application for grant of a permanent permit on the rotue in question. The State Transport Authority once again rejected the said application by its resolution dated 17th May, 1994, on the self-same ground, that is, the Calcutta Mazna route was to a large extent aligned to the notified route Calcutta to Digha. ( 6 ) THE said resolution of the State Transport Authority dated 17th May, 1994, was again challenged by the writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1, and, as indicated, hereinabove, the writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge with a direction upon the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, and its authorities to issue a permanent permit to the writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1 on the route Calcutta to Mazna within four weeks from the date of communication of the order. ( 7 ) APPEARING in support of the appeal, Mr. Tarun Kumar Roy submitted that the learned single Judge erred in directing the State Trasnsport Authority to issue a permanent stage carriage permit to the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 on the route in question having regard to the provisions of Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. ( 8 ) MR. Roy then submitted that it had been urged on behalf of the writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1 before the learned single Judge that the restriction imposed under Section 104 of the above Act by two Notifications both dated 15th Sept. ( 8 ) MR. Roy then submitted that it had been urged on behalf of the writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1 before the learned single Judge that the restriction imposed under Section 104 of the above Act by two Notifications both dated 15th Sept. 1988, had been relaxed to some extent by a subsequent notification dated 14th June, 1989, whereby the Regional Transport Authorities "of the Calcutta Region, Howrah and Midnapore were permitted to grant permits in respect of such areas or routes within their District/ Region, but for periods not exceeding four months, to secure or maintain the adequacy of such (service in such areas or routes (except route Calcutta/howrah to Digha) which may cross or overlap a notified route as existing on 15th Sept. 1988. ( 9 ) MR. Roy submitted that the said scheme was further modified by another notification dated 18th Sept. 1989, whereby the Regional Transport Authorities of Howrah J Midnapur and 24 Parganas and the Director, Public Vehicles Department, Calcutta, were, inter alia, authorised to grant temporary and permanent permits in respect of such area or routes within the respective District/region of Howrah/ Midnaptir/calcutta and 24 Parganas in respect of services in the inter-regional routes to secure or maintain the adequacy of such services in such area or permits which may touch or overlap the notified routes and also in such approved existing inter-regional routes, excepting Howrah-Digha and Calcutta-Digha, which were in existence as on 15th Sept. 1988 and were being maintained under permanent or temporary permit, so that such number of permits did not exceed the approved vacancies as on 15th Sept. 1988. ( 10 ) MR. Roy urged that in one of the several writ petitions filed by the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 in this Court, challenging the resolution adopted by the State Transport Authority West Bengal, at its meeting held on 15th December, 1993, rejecting the prayer for grant of permanent permit on the route Calcutta to Mazna, the Notification dated 14th June, 1989, had fallen for consideration and the matter was disposed of on 11th April, 1994, with a direction upon the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, to act in terms of the said notification or order as far as the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 was concerned. Mr. Mr. Roy pointed out that the said order was upheld by the Hon'ble Appeal Court and consideration of the petitioner's case must, therefore, be confined to the said notification dated 14th June, 1989, which provided for relaxation on the notified route-Calcutta to Digha to the extent of grant of temporary permits on routes touching or aligned to the notified route. ( 11 ) MR. Roy urged that the subsequent notification dated 18th Sept. 1989, which provided for further relaxation, relating to grant of both temporary and permanent permits, could not be applied to the case of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 on account of the order passed on the above mentioned writ application on llth April, 1994. ( 12 ) MR. Roy then submitted that even if it be held that the notification dated 18th Sept, 1989, would apply to the writ petitioner's case, he would not come within the first category contemplated in the said notification since under the said category temporary/permanent permits could be granted by the R. T. As. of Howrah, Midnapore, Calcutta and South 24 Parganas and the Director, Public Vehicles Department, Calcutta, in respect of areas or routes only within the respective districts/region of Howrah/ Midnapore/calcutta and 24 Parganas. Mr. Roy urged that, if at all, the writ petitioner could come under the second category indicated in the said notification, in respect of the approved existing inter-regional route, except Howrah-Digha and Calcutta-Digha, which were in existence as on 15th Sept. 1988 and were being maintained under permanent or temporary permits, the number whereof was not to exceed the approved vacancies as on 15th Sept. 1988. ( 13 ) MR. Roy urged that even if the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 came within the second category, he would be subject to the limitations imposed regarding the route as also the number of approved vacancies as on 15th Sept. 1988, and since the major portion of the Calcutta Mazna route overlapped the notified route, the writ petitioner's prayer for issuance of a permanent permit thereon could not be granted. ( 14 ) IN support of his submissions Mr. 1988, and since the major portion of the Calcutta Mazna route overlapped the notified route, the writ petitioner's prayer for issuance of a permanent permit thereon could not be granted. ( 14 ) IN support of his submissions Mr. Roy referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U. P. State Roadways Transport Corporation, Lucknow v. Anwar Ahmed, wherein while considering the provisions of Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that after a scheme is approved and published, private operators have no right to claim permit to operate their vehicles on the notified area, route or portion thereof, except to the extent permitted by the scheme itself. It was also observed further that the scheme is law and prevails till varied according to law. ( 15 ) MR. ROY urged that once a scheme is approved and notified, right of private operators to ply stage carriages in the notified area, routes or portions thereof is totally frozen and by virtue of Section 104 of the above Act the State Transport Corproations have the exclusive right of monopoly to ply stage carriage and obtain the required permits as per the scheme. ( 16 ) REFERENCE was also made to two other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (1) C. Kasturi v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, and (2) A. P. S. R. T. C. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which reiterated the above position. ( 17 ) MR. Roy submitted that the learned single Judge misconstrued the contents of the notification dated 14th June, 1989, and 18th Sept. 1989, in arriving at the conclusion that the State Transport Authority had wrongly rejected the petitioner's claim for grant of permanent permit on the route Calcutta to Mazna. Mr. Roy urged that without modification of the scheme published under Section 68d of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, no permit in excess of the number of permits specified in the scheme could be granted and that the learned single Judge erred in directing otherwise. Mr. Roy submitted that the order of the learned single Judge could not be sustained in any view of the matter and was liable to be set aside. ( 18 ) APPEARING on behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1, Mr. Mr. Roy submitted that the order of the learned single Judge could not be sustained in any view of the matter and was liable to be set aside. ( 18 ) APPEARING on behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1, Mr. Murari Mohan Das submitted that the appeal preferred by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, was wholly mis-conceived and without any substance in view of the changed circumstances on account of the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Mr. Das urged that, inasmuch as, the scheme with regard to the notification of the Calcutta-Digha and Howrah-Digha routes was published under the 1939 Act, the same stood superseded by the provisions of the 1988 Act, Section 80 whereof provides for liberal grant of permits to ensure healthy competition among operators which would ultimately benefit the travelling public in the shape of better vehicles providing better facilities. Mr. Das submitted that, in any event, the scheme, if at all valid and in force, had been modified by the subsequent notifications issued by the State of West Bengal. Mr. Das submitted that, inasmuch as, the State Transport Corporation were not in a position to provide adequate services on the notified routes, the State Government in its Transport Department relaxed the conditions imposed under the notification of 15th Sept. 1988, by allowing the Regional Transport Authorities of Howrah, Midnapore, Calcutta and 24 Parganas and the Director, the Public Vehicles Department, Calcutta, to grant temporary or permanent permits in respect of the area or rotues within their District/ Region in respect of services in the interregional routes in respect of such permits which may touch or overlap the notified routes. ( 19 ) MR. Das urged that in view of the liberalised provisions of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it was no longer open to the appellant to contend that no permit on the route in question could be granted over and above the number of permits approved by the scheme. ( 20 ) MR. Das urged that the above-mentioned notifications by which the conditions of the scheme published on 18th Sept. ( 20 ) MR. Das urged that the above-mentioned notifications by which the conditions of the scheme published on 18th Sept. 1988, were modified, fell for consideration before Samaresh Banerjea, J. in the case of Rina Chakraborry v. State (W. P. No. 392 of 1998) and several other writ applications touching the same point and by his judgment dated 28th August, 1997, the learned Judge was of the view that the notification of 18th Sept. 1989, would prevail over the earlier notification. The learned Judge also observed that the State Government had felt the need to modify the scheme by which private operators were totally excluded since it was of the view that the existing operators were not in a position to maintain adequate services in the area and/or routes. The learned Judge took note of the fact that the State Government had already published a scheme proposing to denotify a portion of the notified route as it is of the view that the State Transport Undertakings were not in a position to maintain the adequacy of service even in such portions of the notified routes. ( 21 ) MR. Das pointed out that on the basis of his aforesaid findings the learned Judge allowed all the writ applications except for that of Smt. Sandhya Bara and directed the concerned Transport Authorities to consider afresh the applications of the different petitioners in each case for grant of permanent permit in respect of routes which overlapped or were aligned with the notified route. ( 22 ) MR. Das submitted that the decisions cited by Mr. Roy would have no application to the facts of this case since the scheme had been modified by the subsequent notification. Mr. Das urged that since the authorities concerned, including the appellant, repeatedly rejected the pertitioner's prayer for grant of permanent permit on the route Calcutta to Mazna, on the same ground, the learned single Judge had no option but to direct the appellant herein and its authorities to issue a permanent permit in favour of the respondent No. 1 on the concerned route. ( 23 ) WE have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and we are firmly of the view that having regard to the modification of the scheme published on 18th Sept. ( 23 ) WE have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and we are firmly of the view that having regard to the modification of the scheme published on 18th Sept. 1988, by the State Government in its Transport Department, not once, but twice, by virtue of the two notifications dated 14thjune, 1989 and 18th Sept. 1989, the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, ought not to have rejected the prayer of the writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1 for grant of a permanent permit on the route Calcutta to Mazna. ( 24 ) AS will appear from the two notifications themselves, the State Govemment was quite aware of the failure of the State Transport Undertakings to maintain adequate services on the notified routes and that under compulsion it had to modify the scheme by authorising (he Regional Transport Authorities of Howrah, Midnapure, Calcutta, and 24 Parganas and the Director, Public Vehicles Department, Calcutta, to issue temporary permits within their respective Districts/ Region. Thereafter the State Government again felt the need to modify the scheme further by issuing the second notification dated 18th Sept. , 1989, whereby the aforesaid authorities were empowered to grant not only temporary but also permanent permits in respect of routes which touched, overlapped or were alleged to the notified route. In our view, having regard to such relaxation made by the State Government itself, it can no longer be contended that without modification of the scheme, it was not open to the State Transport Authorities, West Bengal, and the State Regional Transport Authorities to grant further permits of the route in question. ( 25 ) IN our view, having regard to the two notifications published by the State Government on 14th June, 1989 and 18th Sept. , 1989, modifying the scheme, the decisions cited by Mr. Roy will have no application to the facts of this case and the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, acted erroneously in rejecting the petitioner's claim for grant of a permanent permit on the route Calcutta to Mazna merely on the ground that the said route touched or overlapped or was aligned to a major portion of the notified route. ( 26 ) WE, accordingly, see no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned single Judge.