Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 3.1.1996, passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh, exercising the powers of the Regional Transport Authority, Ferozepur (hereinafter referred to as the STC), whereby the application of the petitioner for the increase of return trips from two to three on Bathinda- Moonak via Kotshamir- Mysore Khana- Maur- Mansa-Phaphra- Budhlada- Bareta- Jakhal- Karyal route (hereinafter referred to as the route in question) was rejected; and the order dated 22.11.2006, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the STAT), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been dismissed. 2. In the present case, the petitioner was holding two regular stage carriage permits Nos. 692/55 and 192/Reg/89 with two return trips daily on the route in question, which were granted in the year 1989, prior to coming into force the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990, as modified on 21.10.1997. Subsequently, in the year 1994, the petitioner made an application for increase in the return trips from two to three on the route in question. On the application, survey was conducted by the Assistant Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ferozepur, and he recommended the increase in return trips in the public interest. Thereafter, application of the petitioner was got published in the Motor Transport Gazette, Weekly, Chandigarh and in response thereto, seven existing operators, including PRTC, Bathinda-I and PRTC, Budhlada filed objections. The STC, after considering the objections, rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 3.1.1996, while observing that since adequate and reasonable number of buses were operating on the route in question, therefore, there was no justification for increase in the number of return trips. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, who vide its order dated 22.11.2006, dismissed the appeal, while holding that part of the route in question is covered by the monopoly route of PRTC from Bathinda to Mansa in respect of the monopoly route from Patiala to Mansa. Therefore, in view of Clause (4) of the Transport Scheme, as modified on 21.10.1997, grant of increase in number of return trips on the monopoly route is not permissible. Therefore, in view of Clause (4) of the Transport Scheme, as modified on 21.10.1997, grant of increase in number of return trips on the monopoly route is not permissible. Clause (4) of the said Scheme provides that all future operations on monopoly routes shall be operated by the State Transport Undertakings, provided that a private operator may be allowed to operate on a portion of twenty percent of the monopoly route or up to the distance of fifteen kilometers of the said route, whichever is less. It has been found that a portion of the route in question i.e. from Bathinda to Mansa, a stretch of 59 Kms. is beyond 20% or in any case, 15 Kms. of the total length of the monopoly route. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the PRTC has surrendered certain permits on other routes, therefore, the increase of return trip cannot be denied to the private operator on the ground that part of the route falls on the monopoly route. He further submits that the authorities below have not properly appreciated and considered the recommendation of the Surveying Officer as well as the fact that on the route in question, sufficient bus services were not available and in this regard, the Surveying Officer recommended that in the public interest, the proposed increase was necessary. 5. We do not find any substance in the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner. Merely because the PRTC has surrendered one or more permits on the monopoly route, the monopoly route will not loose its significance. As per Clause (4) of the modified Transport Scheme dated 21.10.1997, no private operator can be granted a stage carriage permit on the monopoly route, as all the operations on monopoly route shall be operated by the State Transport Undertakings. The only exception to this is that a private operator may be allowed to operate on portion of the monopoly route, if the said portion is 20% or upto the distance of 15 Kms. of the monopoly route, whichever is less. Section 80 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides that an application to increase the number of trips above the specified maximum shall be treated as an application for the grant of new permit. of the monopoly route, whichever is less. Section 80 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides that an application to increase the number of trips above the specified maximum shall be treated as an application for the grant of new permit. Further, Sub-section (2) of Section 103 of the Act provides that for the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority may refuse to entertain any application for the grant of renewal of any other permit on the notified route. 6. In the instant case, two regular stage carriage permits were granted to the petitioner in the year 1989 and the extension of return trips from two to three was applied for after coming into force of the Transport Scheme, as notified on 9.8.1990, which was subsequently modified vide notification dated 21.10.1997. Now after coming into force of the modified Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 as modified vide notification dated 21.10.1997, neither a private operator can be permitted to operate nor stage carriage permit can be granted to a private operator on the monopoly route except that a private operator may be allowed to operate on portion of the monopoly route, if the said portion is 20% or upto the distance of 15 Kms. of the monopoly route, whichever is less. 7. The case of the petitioner does not fall under the proviso to Clause (4) of the aforesaid modified Transport Scheme. The Supreme Court in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal, observed that if any Transport Scheme published, approved and notified under the Act, prohibits private transport owners to operate on the notified area or route or any portion thereof, the Regional Transport Authority can not either renew the permit of such private owners or give any fresh permit in respect of a route which overlaps the notified route. It was further held that where a private transport owner makes an application to operate on a route which overlaps even a portion of the notified route, then that application has to be considered only in the light of the scheme as notified. If any conditions are placed then those conditions have to be fulfilled and if there is a total prohibition then the application must be rejected. 8. If any conditions are placed then those conditions have to be fulfilled and if there is a total prohibition then the application must be rejected. 8. Similarly, this Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. State of Punjab and Anr. (1995-1)109 P.L.R. 385, has observed that since the route in dispute, over which extension was sought, is a monopoly route of the STU, as per the Transport Scheme, the STU can raise a valid objection for grant of stage carriage permit or increase in return trips on the said route. A private operator cannot claim, as a matter of right, extension of its route overlapping wholly or partly over the monopoly route, as the same would be clearly infringing the provisions of the Transport Scheme, approved and notified under Sections 99 and 100 of the Act. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned orders, passed by the authorities below and the instant writ petition is, hereby, dismissed.