R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) SRI K. Rajavarma Ballal petitioner in W. P. No. 31333 of 2003: Sri B. P. Divakara petitioner in W. P. No. 33401 of 2003; The Director, Shimoga Transport company Private Limited and The Gajanana motor Transport Company Limited petitioners in W. P. Nos. 31953-54 of 2003 are before me seeking a direction directing the respondents not to grant/assign timings or issue stage carriage permits unless the routes are formulated or specified as per section 68 (3) (ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 ("the Act," for short ). ( 2 ) PETITIONERS state that Section 68 (3) (ca) of the Act was enacted providing for formulation of routes for grant of stage carriage permits. Writ petitions were filed in this court in Writ Petition No. 36516 of 2000 and connected matters. This Court by an order dated 27-11-2000, according to the petition averments, disposed of those petitions with certain directions. Writ Appeals were filed by the petitioners therein, and the writ appeals were disposed of by this Court in terms of an order dated 5-2-2001. Thereafter, another petition was filed in Writ Petition No. 26574 of 2002. That petition was dismissed and the appeal was also dismissed. Petitioners, after referring to these judgments, would say that in terms of the statute and in terms of the binding orders of this Court, respondents are duty bound to frame a scheme formulating th routes. According to them, without formulating a scheme or routes in terms of Section 68 of the Act no permits or timings can be granted by the respondents. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS have put in appearance. They oppose the prayers of the petitioners. Impleading application is filed in W. P. No. 31333 of 2003. Impleading applicant also opposes the prayers. Respondents say that in identical circumstances this Court has rejected a writ petition on the ground that rival operators cannot be permitted to contend that the authorities must be restrained from issuing permits to the fresh operators. They say that the appeal filed by the petitioners were dismissed. They also say that a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme court is pending. ( 4 ) STATE Government has filed an affidavit. They say that the appeal filed by the petitioners were dismissed. They also say that a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme court is pending. ( 4 ) STATE Government has filed an affidavit. They say that the Government has to act in a phased manner in terms of Section 68 (3) (ca) of the Act and the process would take an elaborate survey regarding unsaturated routes, traffic potentiality, etc. They justify their action. ( 5 ) HEARD Sri D. L. N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Learned counsel repeatedly reminds me of the statutory safeguards and the subsequent judgments of this Court. Learned counsel would say that in terms of the Division Bench judgment. a statute cannot be a dead letter and that the spirit of the Section 68 (3) (ca) has to be given effect to by the respondents. He finds fault with them. He clarified that the pending SLP is nothing to do with the present claim. He relies on JT 1999 (7) SC 256 : ( AIR 1999 SC 3558 ), (Chandra Kishore jha v. Mahavir Prasad; and (2001) 4 SCC 9 : ( AIR 2001 SC 1512 ). (Dhananjaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka ). Per contra, respondents reiterate their contentions in terms of the objections filed by them. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel on either side, I have gone through the materials placed before me. ( 7 ) SECTION 68 (3) read as under :the State Transport Authority and every regional Transport Authority shall give effect to any directions issued under Section 67 and the State Transport Authority shall, subject to such directions and save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, exercise and discharge throughout the State the following powers and functions, namely : (A) to coordinate and regulate the activities and policies of the Regional Transport authorities, if any, of the State; (B) to perform the duties of a Regional transport Authority where there is no such authority and, if it thinks fit or if so, required by a Regional Transport Authority, to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two ore more regions; (C) to settle all disputes and decide all matters on which differences of opinion arise between Regional Transport Authorities; (ca) Government to formulate routes for plying stage carriages; and (D) to discharge such other function as may be prescribed. "this section was the subject matter of a decision in Writ Petition N. 36515-518 of 2000 and connected matters. This Court in W. P. No. 36515-518 of 2000 has ruled as under:" (A) That the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority henceforth shall not grant any stage carriage permit, nor allot timings under the permits already granted until and unless the State government formulates and specifies the route or routes for plying of stage carriage permits. (B) The State Government is directed to expeditiously formulate and specify the route or routes in accordance with law and in every case within a period of six months from the communication of this order of the court to it. It is further provided that during this period i. e. , till the State Government formulates and notifies the route or routes for stage carriage permits for the plying of stage carriages, the existing operators who are operating today the stage carriage under the permits already granted shall be allowed to operate their carriages during this above period or upto the expiry of their permits whichever is earlier. " ( 8 ) WHEN this matter was challenged in writ Appeal Nos. 8043-69 of 2000 and connected matters, the Division Bench has ruled as under :"for the reasons stated above, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and the directions (a) and (c) are set aside. "what remains for consideration is direction No. (b), by which the State Government was ordered to formulate and specify the route/s within a period of six months. The question is whether the State Government is under a duty to formulate the routes as contemplated by the newly introduced provision (ca ). We have already expressed the view that clause (ca) of Section 68 (3) confers an enabling or potential power. As and when the factual situation demands, such power is required to be exercised. Even a discretionary power is at times construed to be one coupled with duty. The State Government cannot forever forsake its duty of identifying and formulating the routes keeping in view the considerations of public interest. The State Government, by its perpetual inaction, cannot make the provision a dead letter and frustrate the very objective with which it was introduced. So far, no exercise has been done by the State Government in this behalf though six years have elapsed. The State Government, by its perpetual inaction, cannot make the provision a dead letter and frustrate the very objective with which it was introduced. So far, no exercise has been done by the State Government in this behalf though six years have elapsed. We have therefore of the view that the State Government has to initiate steps expeditiously to identify and formulates the routes. As and when such routes are specified, the application for permit will have to be in conformity with the Governments Order and at the same time, we would like to make it clear that it is not incumbent upon the State Government to formulate the routes covering the entire length and breadth of the State at a time. Having due regard to the factual situation and exigencies of public interest, the Government can act in a phased manner. We would not fix any time limit for completing the exercise. But, a beginning has to be made. We expect the Government to take concrete and expeditious steps in this regard. Accordingly, we clarify. "writ Appeals are allowed subject to the above observations. " the Division Bench set aside the directions (a) and (c), but clarified the direction in terms of direction (b ). Thereafter, Writ Petition Nos. 21143-44 of 2002 were filed in somewhat identical circumstances and with somewhat identical prayers. Those petitions stood dismissed by this Court stating therein that rival operators cannot be permitted to question the permits to fresh operators. When that judgment in W. P. Nos. 21143-44 of 2002 was challenged before the Division Bench, the Division Bench confirmed the findings of the learned Judge in its order dated 19-11-2002. Therefore, I am of the view that in the light of the binding Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No. 5298 of 2002, it is not possible for this Court to provide relief at the instance of rival operators in the business in these cases against the contesting respondents. In fact, this very contention has been noticed by the Division Bench, and the Division Bench has dategorically ruled in para 3 of its judgment that such prayers cannot be granted in such circumstances. Therefore, prayer of the petitioners with regard to non grant of permit timings as sought for cannot be granted in the given set of circumstances. In fact, this very contention has been noticed by the Division Bench, and the Division Bench has dategorically ruled in para 3 of its judgment that such prayers cannot be granted in such circumstances. Therefore, prayer of the petitioners with regard to non grant of permit timings as sought for cannot be granted in the given set of circumstances. ( 9 ) I must at this stage notice a serious submission made by Sri D. L. N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Section 68 is enacted with a laudable object of formulating routes for grant of stage carriage permits. This has been in force with effect from 14-11-1994. Matter was challenged by way of writ petition in the year 2000. This Court granted six months time in its order dated 27-11-2000. When this matter was taken up in appeal, the Division bench by a detailed order accepted the contention of the petitioners that the State government has to formulate the routes expeditiously. It ruled that even a discretionary power is at times construed to be one coupled with duty. State Government cannot forever forsake its duty of identifying and formulating the routes keeping in view the considerations of public interest. The State government by its perpetual inaction cannot make the provision a dead letter and frustrate the very objective with which it was introduced. The Court after noticing all aspects with regard to the scheme has finally ruled that having due regard to the factual situations and exigencies of public interest, the Government can act in a phased manner. The Court further ruled that it would not fix any time limit for completing the exercise, but a beginning has to be made, and that it expected the Government to take concrete and expeditious steps in this regard. This order was passed on 5-2-2001. Nothing has been done so far. Thereafter, another batch of petitions were filed. The division Bench in the second batch of petitions, in its judgment of 19-11-2002, has again ruled that the Government is expected to consider the same and frame rules as early as possible. 10 long years are over. 4 long years are over after the Division Bench decision. Government has not moved to frame routes in terms of Section 68 of the act. 10 long years are over. 4 long years are over after the Division Bench decision. Government has not moved to frame routes in terms of Section 68 of the act. In the circumstances, this Court is compelled to fix a time limitation of 6 months so that perpetual inaction of the Government is arrested in terms of the object of the statute. Statute, as rightly stated by the division Bench, cannot be a dead letter. When the Government fails in its duty, courts have to pump blood so as to provide life to a dying letter of law. That is a constitutional duty casts on this Court. ( 10 ) THE Government at my instance has filed an affidavit and it has sought for two years time. Two years is too long a time on the facts of this case in the light of the earlier litigations. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances, while rejecting the prayer of prohibition in these petitions, I deem it proper to direct the Government to specify the routes within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the routes are formulated, government is not debarred from granting/assigning routes/timings in accordance with law to the operators. Ordered accordingly. No costs. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .