Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. Petitioner in O.P. 19765/98 is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No. KL.5B-5443. He has been operating service on the route Erattupetta - Kottayam on the basis of temporary permit issued to him by the respondent. Petitioner applied for a regular permit. The application was objected by the K.S.R.T.C. on the ground that if the permit is given the same would violate the scheme published by the Government of Kerala Notification dated 24th October, 1966 since the route overlaps the Kottayam - Poonjar route referred to as route No. 6 in the scheme. Regional Transport Authority rejected the application. Aggrieved by the same applicant preferred an appeal before S.T.A.T. as M.V. A.A. 442/98. S.T.A.T allowed the appeal and granted the permit to the applicant, to operate on the route Erattupetta-Kottayam. The applicant has preferred O.P. 19765/98 to implement the said order. K.S.R.T.C. has preferred O.P. 21296/98 challenging the judgment of the S.T.A.T. 2. The principal contention raised by the counsel for the K.S.R.T.C. is that if the permit is granted the same would violate the notified scheme. The scheme was published under R.3 Form II of the Kerala Motor Vehicles (State Transport Undertaking) Rules, 1960 as prescribed under S.68 C & D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which corresponds to S.104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The particulars of stage carriage permit to be excluded are given in annexure- b of the Scheme. According to clause (7) of Schedule II of the Scheme, all the services completely overlapping on any of the routes mentioned in Appendix -A and also those services falling within the routes mentioned in appendix-a are to be excluded. S.T. A.T. has proceeded on the basis that there should be complete overlapping. In other words the proposed route should completely overlap the entire routes of the proposed route in its entirety should fall on the Kottayam-Poonjar route. According to the S.T. A.T. in the absence of the words to the effect that there will be objectionable overlapping in case two or more intermediate points are connected, the K.S.R.T.C. cannot be heard to say that there will be objectionable overlapping if two or more intermediate points are connected. I am of the view the said reasoning of the S.T. A.T. cannot be accepted. I am of the view the said reasoning of the S.T. A.T. cannot be accepted. The particulars of stage carriage permits to be excluded are given in clause (7) of the scheme which says that all the services completely overlapping on any of the routes mentioned in appendix-a and also those services falling within the routes mentioned in appendix-a are to be excluded. The particulars of the stage carriage permits to be excluded are also given in appendix-b. appendix-b refers to the route Kottayam - Erattupetta. This is the route for which permit was sought for. It is evident from the scheme itself that route has been excluded. Consequently the private operators cannot operate the vehicle through those routes. In this connection it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P, State Roadways Transport Corporation v, Anwar Ahmed reported in (1997) 3 SCC 191. Supreme Court held as follows: "Once the scheme has been approved and notified, right to ply stage carriages by private operators on the notified area, routes or portions thereof is totally frozen. Therefore, they have no right to claim any grant of stage carriage, temporary or contract carriage permit thereunder on the said notified area, routes or portions thereof except to the extent saved by the scheme with restrictions imposed thereunder. By virtue of S.104 the appellant-corporation has the exclusive right or monopoly to ply their stage carriages and obtain the required permit as per the scheme." According to the Supreme Court, the Scheme is law by itself and until it is varied according to law, no private operator has any right to camouflage any device to obtain temporary permits. Reversing the decision of the High Court, Supreme Court has concluded that the action of the authorities in granting temporary permit is untra vires and that the authorities have no jurisdiction to grant such permits. Under the abovementioned circumstance I am of the view R.T.A. has rightly rejected the application for regular permit sought for by the applicant. Under such circumstance I have no hesitation to hold that the judgment passed by the S.T.A.T. cannot stand in the eye of law and accordingly, the same is set aside. O.P. No. 19765/98 is dismissed and O.P. 21296/98 would stand allowed.