Judgment :- P. Sathasivam, J. Writ Appeal is directed against order of the learned Single Judge dated 5-11-1997 made in Writ Petition No. 14075 of 1988 in and by which the learned Judge, after holding that the orders of the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry and State Transport Appellate Authority, Pondicherry, granting variation by increasing the number of singles in favour of one M. Lakshmikanthan, 4th respondent herein is illegal and opposed to Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, quashed the same and allowed the writ petition. 2. The fourth respondent herein applied for grant of variation of the route in respect of his vehicle PYX 4955 plying on the route Pondicherry-Cuddalore. Since the said variation overlapped on the approved scheme route Tirukoilur-Merkanam published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation, first respondent herein, objected the request for variation. In spite of their objection, the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry had granted the variation to the fourth respondent herein and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry also dismissed the appeal filed by the Transport Corporation. According to the first respondent-Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation, no variation be granted to any individual in the approved scheme route since the authority and the Tribunal have granted the variation filed Writ Petition No. 14075/88 for quashing all those orders. Meanwhile, the fourth respondent herein transferred the permit which he had obtained to the appellant herein. 3. Before the learned single judge, though several contentions have been raised with regard to the orders of Authority and the Tribunal, counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation confined her argument to the question that any variation in the approved scheme route is offending Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, the grant of 10 singles to the fourth respondent herein is illegal and thereby the orders of the authority and the Tribunal have to be quashed. On the side of the private operator it was contended that since he was already having the route in the sector in question and he wanted only increased single and, therefore, it will not amount to variation in the route. On the side of the private operator it was contended that since he was already having the route in the sector in question and he wanted only increased single and, therefore, it will not amount to variation in the route. The learned Judge in the light of the fact that there is a approved scheme duly published in the gazette, found the orders of Authority and Tribunal granting variation increasing the number of singles to the fourth respondent herein is illegal and quashed the orders of both the authorities; hence the present writ appeal by transferee of the permit, namely, M.R. Palanisamy. 4. Heard Mr. M. Krishnappan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. L.G. Sahadevan for 1st respondent, Mr. A.P. Suryaprakasam, learned Additional Government Pleader for Pondicherry for respondents 2 and 3. 5. The only point for consideration in this Appeal is, whether the Authority and the Tribunal are right in granting variation increasing the number of singles in approved scheme and the learned Judge is right in quashing those orders? 6. There is no dispute that as per Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where a scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of Section 100 in respect of any notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. It is also not in dispute that there is an approved scheme route Tirukoilur to Merkanam published in the Tamil Nadu Government gazette dated 31-7-86. In the light of Section 104 and as interpreted by the Supreme Court, no variation shall be granted on the draft/approved scheme route. Since the point in issue is covered by a decision of the Apex Court prevailing as on date, it is unnecessary to refer further factual details. In Raghuram v. P. Jayarama Naidu, reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 412, the following conclusion of Their Lordships is relevant: (para 3) "3. Since the point in issue is covered by a decision of the Apex Court prevailing as on date, it is unnecessary to refer further factual details. In Raghuram v. P. Jayarama Naidu, reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 412, the following conclusion of Their Lordships is relevant: (para 3) "3. In M/s. Adarsh Travels Bus Service v. State of U.P., AIR 1986 SC 319 a Constitution Bench of this Court has held that where a route is nationalised under Chapter IV A of the Act, a private operator with a permit to ply a stage permit over another route but which has a common overlapping sector with the nationalised route, cannot ply his vehicle over that part of the overlapping common sector, even with corridor restrictions, such as that he would not be able to pick up or drop passengers on the overlapping part of the route unless such an exemption had been allowed in the scheme itself. Even when the scheme provides that an existing operator is exempted from the operation of the scheme it only means that he can continue to operate his services with the existing number of trips on the date on which the scheme is published and it does authorise him to apply for a variation of his permit so that he can increase the number of trips on the overlapping portion of the notified route thus increasing the burden of private operation of vehicles on the notified route in question. The variation authorising increasing the number of trips in fact amounts to granting of a fresh permit to run one more stage carriage service doing one round trip on the notified route and that would be in violation of the scheme itself because the scheme protects only the number of trips which were being operated at the time of its publication." In the light of the conclusion of the Supreme Court and in view of the admitted factual position that the variation increasing the number of singles overlaps on the approved scheme route Tirukoilur to Merkanam and the same was rightly considered by the learned single Judge, we are in agreement with the same and the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, Mr. However, Mr. Krishnappan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that inasmuch as the said observation/conclusion was made by Their Lordships while referring the matter to a Constitution Bench to decide whether on the publication of an approved scheme the number of trips of the vehicles of the existing operators can be increased by granting the variation of a permit even when the existing operators are allowed to carry on their business as on the date of the publication of the scheme, the conclusion made therein is not a binding decision, for which he relied on a judgment of Justice M. Srinivasan, J., (as he then was), in S. Kannan v. Member of the Local Board, SBI, reported in 1990 M.L.J. 516. In this regard, it is useful to refer an unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 331 of 1994 etc., dated 29-6-94, wherein the Division Bench had an occasion to refer the decision reported in AIR 1990 SC 412 (cited supra). In that case, the question that came up for consideration before the Supreme Court was that as to whether on a notified route number of the vehicles and number of trips can be increased. After extracting the relevant portion from the decision in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.A. Jayaram ( AIR 1984 SC 790 ), the Division Bench has concluded that, "Therefore, from the aforesaid observations, it is clear that what is to be reconsidered is only the order in Civil Appeal No. 4126 of 1986, dated 24th January, 1989. We are of the view that merely because the matter is referred for re-consideration, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court does not cease to be a binding precedent. Until the decision is reviewed, it holds the field. Therefore, we are of the view that the decision in R.Raghuram's case cannot be held to take away the effect of the decisions in M/s. Adhars Travels case and Pandiyan Roadways case, as the same are binding upon us." With respect, we are in agreement with the said view and unable to share the view expressed by the learned Single Judge reported in 1990 NLJ 516 (cited supra). It is not in dispute that the matter referred to the Constitution Bench has not been disposed and as on date the same is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is not in dispute that the matter referred to the Constitution Bench has not been disposed and as on date the same is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the light of the same, the law laid down in Raghuram's case i.e., AIR 1990 SC 412 has to be applied and the same has been rightly applied by the learned Single Judge who set aside the orders of the Authority and the Tribunal. Though this objection has not been taken before the Authority and the Tribunal, as rightly observed by the learned judge, the same being question of law with reference to Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, we are of the view that the learned Judge is perfectly right in entertaining the said objection and giving answer for the same. Except the above referred contention, no other points were pressed into service before us. 7. In the light of what is stated above, we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge and we do not find any merit in the appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed. No costs.