ORDER Petitioners in both these cases were holders of stage carriage permits operating on the route Panthanahalli to Bangalore. The permits granted to them were for a period of 5 years valid upto either 1-3-2005 or 31-1-2005. It is the case of the petitioners that immediately after the grant of permits, they had commenced the operation of the services. The aforesaid permits were challenged by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'KSRTC') and some other private operators before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short, the 'Tribunal’) by filing revision petitions. The said revision petitions were allowed on 30-12-2000 and the orders of the State Transport Authority (for short, 'STA') were set aside and the permits granted in favour of the petitioners were cancelled mainly on the ground that the grant of permits on the route in question overlaps the notified route of Kolar Pocket Scheme, Anekal Scheme and APSRTC Scheme. The said order of the Tribunal was challenged by the petitioners before this Court in W.P. Nos. 2008-2011 of 2001 and other connected matters. This Court dismissed the said writ petitions by order dated 7 -2-200l. Writ appeals filed against the said order in W.A. Nos. 1946 to 1948 of 2001 were also dismissed by the Division Bench on 14-6-2001. Against these orders, Civil Appeal Nos. 322 to 325 of 2002 were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by Its order dated 14-1-2002 remitted the matter back to the learned Single Judge of this Court for reconsideration in the light of the decision in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Ashrafulla Khan and Others. Again the matter was heard by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the writ petitions were dismissed by the order dated 21-3-2002. Writ appeals filed against the said order in W.A. Nos. 2742 to 2746 of 2002 and other connected matters were dismissed on 30-5-2002. 2. Thereafter, the State Government has modified the Kolar pocket Scheme and a notification to that effect was issued on 7-11-2003. Petitioners once again filed applications for renewal of the permits before the STA and the STA by its order dated 5-1-2005 resolved to restore and renew the permits of the petitioners. An endorsement was issued to that effect on 13-1-2005. Permits were again issued to the petitioners. Petitioners once again filed applications for renewal of the permits before the STA and the STA by its order dated 5-1-2005 resolved to restore and renew the permits of the petitioners. An endorsement was issued to that effect on 13-1-2005. Permits were again issued to the petitioners. Those permits were challenged by the KSRTC and some other private operators before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 4-2-2005 has set aside the said permits. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioners have filed these writ petitions. 3. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would argue that as per the modification to the Kolar Approved Scheme dated 7-11-2003, the permits granted and issued by the STA to the petitioners are saved. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in allowing the revisions filed by the KSRTC and other private operators. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the KSRTC and other private operators submits that two conditions have to be satisfied for renewal of the permits granted between 10-1-1980 and 31-7-1999. The first condition is that the permits should have been granted and issued by the Transport Authority after the modification of the Kolar Pocket Scheme dated 10-1-1980 on Inter-State, Inter-District and Intra-Districts routes overlapping the road section of the notified routes lying in the scheme of Kolar as on 31-7-1999 and secondly on the date of draft notification i.e., on 27-5-2003, the said stage carriage permit holders should be exempted to operate their services. It is further argued that the Tribunal by its order dated 30-12-2000 in Revision Petition No. 432 of 1998 and other connected matters had set aside the order of the STA resolving to grant permits and the permits granted in favour of the petitioners were cancelled. The said orders were not stayed by this Court. The petitioners were permitted to operate their services by the interim order of this Court in different writ petitions. This Court once again upheld the order of the Tribunal in W.P. Nos. 2008 to 2011 of 2001 and other connected matters on 21-3-2002 and the said orders were confirmed by the Division Bench. Therefore, as on the draft notification, i.e., on 27-5-2003 the permits in question were not subsisting. In other words, the petitioners were not exempted to operate their services, as on 27 -5-2003. 6. 2008 to 2011 of 2001 and other connected matters on 21-3-2002 and the said orders were confirmed by the Division Bench. Therefore, as on the draft notification, i.e., on 27-5-2003 the permits in question were not subsisting. In other words, the petitioners were not exempted to operate their services, as on 27 -5-2003. 6. Having regard to the rival contentions of the parties, the questions to be considered are whether the permits of the petitioners are saved in terms of the modified Kolar Approved Scheme dated 7-11-2003 and whether the order of the Tribunal requires interference. 7. As noticed above, by a Notification No. HTD 75 TMA 2001, dated 7-11-2003 Kolar Approved Scheme was modified as under: "Modification to Kolar Approved Scheme.-In the principal scheme published under sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act 4 of 1939), in Notification No. HD 70(2) TMP 64, dated 10th January, 1968 and further modified in Notification No. HD 45 TMI 76(1), dated 10-1-1980 in the entries corresponding to item (d), after clause (c), the following shall be inserted, namely.- "(d) In the case of permit holders to whom permits are already granted and issued by Transport Authorities after modification of the scheme dated 10-1-1980 on Inter-State, Inter-District and Intra-Districts routes overlapping the road section of the notified routes lying in the scheme of Kolar as on 31-7-1999 and also on the date of the Draft Notification, i.e., 27-5-2003, they are exempted to operate their service. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Bangalore and Anekal Schemes, with a condition that they shall not be entitled to pickup or set down passengers in such portion of the notified route lying in the Scheme of Kolar"". (emphasis supplied) 8. Two conditions have to be fulfilled in order to save the permits under the aforesaid modified scheme. They are: (i) Permits should have already been granted and issued by the Transport Authorities between 10-1-1980 and 31-7-1999 on the Inter-State, Inter-District and Intra-Districts routes overlapping the road section of the notified routes lying in the scheme of Kolar; and (ii) As on the date of issue of Draft Notification i.e., on 27-5-2003 the holders of the permits should be exempted to operate their services. In other words, as on 27-5-2003 the permits should be current. The permits in operation as on 27-5-2003 are alone saved. In other words, as on 27-5-2003 the permits should be current. The permits in operation as on 27-5-2003 are alone saved. This is amply clear from the words 'and also' employed in the scheme. In the present case, the Tribunal had already set aside the permits on 30-12-2000. Even this Court after the remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, confirmed the aforesaid order of the Tribunal on 21-3-2000. Therefore, the permits of the petitioners were not in operation as on 27-5-2003. Thus, the petitioners were not exempted to operate their services as on 27 -5-2003. 9. It is well-established that a scheme framed, approved and notified under Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, is having the force in law. Having regard to the language employed in the modified scheme especially from the words 'and also', it is clear that the permits in operation as on 27-5-2003 are alone saved. The Tribunal is therefore justified in allowing the revision petitions filed by the KSRTC and the private operators. I do not find any error in the order impugned. Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.