Judgment :- 1. These writ petitions are disposed of by this common order since they involve common question of law and fact as to whether on the facts of the case, permit could be granted by the first respondent-Regional Transport Authority to operate state carriages in a notified route under the BTS scheme and as to whether they are saved by the amendment of the scheme. 2. It is unnecessary to narrate the facts in detail of all the writ petitions and it would be sufficient if the facts in W.P. No.17700/2006 are referred to as the facts in other cases are also similar to W.P. No.17700/2006 and the question of law involved is also identical. 3. W.P. No.17700/2006 is filed by the stage carriage operator averring that he filed an application on 16.12.1999 for grant of fresh Stage Carriage Permit for the route Bangalore to Tumkur and back via the places mentioned in the application. The said application was considered by the first respondent-Regional Transport Authority (RTA) in its meeting held on 08.08.2001 vide subject No.81/2001-2002 and Stage Carriage Permit was granted as prayed for in the application. At the time of consideration, the second respondent-Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) raised a specific objection stating that the proposed route overlaps the notified route under the BTS, Bangalore and Shimoga Scheme. The said objection was overruled by the first respondent-RTA since the proposed route does not traverse on any monopoly routes mentioned above and in fact, it traversed only on the interior portion of the village i.e., other than the monopoly route, where the second respondent has not been operating any service on the route in question and accordingly, the first respondent granted the permit as per Annexure ‘A’ to the writ petition on 08.08.2001. Being aggrieved by the said order, the KSRTC preferred R.P. No.543/2002 before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) Bangalore, challenging the grant of permit in favour of the petitioner herein. 4. The Tribunal, by order dated 27.06.2005, set aside the grant of permit made in favour of the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved by the said order, the KSRTC preferred R.P. No.543/2002 before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) Bangalore, challenging the grant of permit in favour of the petitioner herein. 4. The Tribunal, by order dated 27.06.2005, set aside the grant of permit made in favour of the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed W.P. No.19772/2005 and this Court by order dated 14.06.2006, set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 27.06.2005 and remanded the matter to the Tribunal on the ground that several cases of different routes were clubbed together and accordingly, directed the Tribunal to consider each case separately and to consider the question as to whether the permit granted in favour of the petitioner was exempted under the BTS Scheme. 5. After remand, the Tribunal heard the counsel for the parties. It was contended by the petitioner herein that the permit granted in his favour would not violate the BTS scheme or Bangalore and Shimoga schemes as there is only intersection of the notified BTS scheme and the route in respect of the permit granted to the petitioner herein does not overlap with the notified route under Bangalore and Shimoga Schemes. It is also contended that the permit that is granted in favour of the petitioner herein would not attract the provisions of the BTS scheme and wherefore, the order passed by the RTA dated 08.08.2001 is justified and the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the said order. 6. The revision petition was resisted by the second respondent-KSRTC., contending that the permit that is granted in favour of the petitioner herein violates the BTS scheme. Therefore, the permit could not have been granted and the order passed by the RTA was wholly without jurisdiction and could not be sustained. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions of the counsel for the parties, framed the points for determination as to whether the impugned grant of renewal in favour of the second respondent (petitioner herein) was sustainable in law and if so, what order had to be passed. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions of the counsel for the parties, framed the points for determination as to whether the impugned grant of renewal in favour of the second respondent (petitioner herein) was sustainable in law and if so, what order had to be passed. On scrutiny of the material on record, the Tribunal by order dated 24.11.2006, held that the route survey was conducted and the report found at pages 12 and 13 of the LCRs., would show that the father of the petitioner herein was present during the route survey, which fact is not disputed and has culled out the remark in the said report regarding the overlapping as follows:- “1. The route from Bangalore to Gokula Cross – 10 Kms. Overlaps in Bangalore and Shimoga scheme which lies in Bangalore City Limit. 2. Jalahalli Cross to Hesaraghatta Cross – 1.8 Kms. overlaps in Bangalore and Shimoga scheme. 3. Madnayakanahalli to Nagaroor Cross distance of 1.8 Kms. on National Highway overlaps in Bangalore and Shimoga scheme. 4. Basavanapura Cross – Nelamangala Bus stand and back to Basavanapura Cross – 3 Kms. overlaps Bangalore and Shimoga Scheme out of which 2 Kms. within the town limit of Nelamangala. 5. Bangalore – Nagaroor Cross overlaps in BTS Area scheme.” The Tribunal further held that though there is dispute regarding overlapping of route covered under the Bangalore and Shimoga Schemes with that of the route covered under the permit granted in favour of the petitioner herein, the fact that the said permit violates the route covered under the BTS scheme was not disputed. The Tribunal, after referring to the BTS scheme held that the order of the RTA dated 08.08.2001 granting permit in favour of the petitioner herein in violation of the scheme is unsustainable and liable to be set aside following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in earlier cases. 8. The Tribunal, after referring to the BTS scheme held that the order of the RTA dated 08.08.2001 granting permit in favour of the petitioner herein in violation of the scheme is unsustainable and liable to be set aside following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in earlier cases. 8. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the orders of the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal has set aside the order of the first respondent-RTA granting/renewing permits on the ground that the same violated the BTS scheme contending that the area covered under the permit granted or renewal of permit in favour of the petitioners fall within the moffusil area, which is not covered by the BTS scheme and further, the route that is allotted to the writ petitioners would not be overlapping with the nominated route under the BTS scheme. It is also contended that all the permits have been saved under the modified BTS scheme and wherefore, the orders of the Tribunal impugned in the writ petitions are liable to be set aside and the permits granted or renewed by the RTA are sought to be resorted. 9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 10. The learned counsels’ appearing for the petitioner’s in all these writ petitions contended that the permits that are granted or renewal of permits made in favour of the writ petitioner’s by the RTA do not violate the BTS scheme and while granting routes, care has been taken to ensure that there is no overlapping of the routes covered under the permits with that of the nominated routes under the BTS scheme. It is also contended that grant/renewal of permits made in favour of the writ petitioners’ are covered under the modified BTS scheme by notification dated 31.05.2007 and the permits granted between 10.01.1980 to 01.04.2002 are saved and wherefore, the impugned orders of the Tribunal are set aside and the orders of the RTA are sought to be restored. 11. It is also contended that grant/renewal of permits made in favour of the writ petitioners’ are covered under the modified BTS scheme by notification dated 31.05.2007 and the permits granted between 10.01.1980 to 01.04.2002 are saved and wherefore, the impugned orders of the Tribunal are set aside and the orders of the RTA are sought to be restored. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC., submitted that it is indisputable that the routes covered under the permits granted/renewed in favour of the writ petitioners’, who are Stage carriage operators would overlap with the notified routes, which is the monopoly of the State undertakings under the BTS scheme and no permit could be granted if the route covered under the permit which is granted/renewed in favour of the writ petitioners’ overlaps with the routes covered under the BTS scheme. The learned counsel further submitted that the modification of the BTS scheme by notification dated 31.05.2007 has been challenged before this Court in W.P. No.158/2008 and connected cases and wherefore, if the modification of the BTS scheme is upheld, the permits granted/renewed in favour of the writ petitioners’ would be saved by the said modification. 12. The learned Additional Government Advocate argued in support of the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the modification of the BTS scheme has been challenged in W.P. No.158/2008 and connected writ petitions. 13. We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinized the material on record. 14. It is well settled that when a scheme has been formulated, the State undertaking would have exclusive right to ply its vehicles and no state carriage permits can be granted in respect of a route overlapping with the route covered under the scheme formulated in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also well settled that the permit granted in respect of a route, which overlaps with the route notified under the scheme nominated under Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 or Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and there cannot be any defence whatever except contending that is only an intersection. Before considering the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is necessary to cull out the provisions of the BTS scheme in so far as it relates to the operation, plying of vehicles by private operators on the notified route: Approved Scheme The above said BTS scheme has been modified by order dated 31.05.2007 as follows:- “Operation of the services by the permit holders who have been granted permits to ply their services on inter State routes, inter distinct routes and intra district routes and operating their services after the publication of the modified scheme dated 10.01.1980 and 01.04.2000 and those permit in operation as on 01.04.2002 and whose routes were overlapping the notified routes of the Bellary approved scheme with a direction not to pick up or set down passengers on any portion of the routes overlapping the notified routes except at Bus stands.” Having regard to the material on record and the earlier decisions of this Court quoted by the Tribunal, it is clear that the routes covered under the permits granted by the RTA in favour of the writ petitioners’ overlaps with the routes notified under the BTS scheme and wherefore, the said permits are wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. There is also no merit in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners’ that in view of the modification of the BTS scheme by notification dated 31.05.2007, the permits granted/renewed in favour of the writ petitioners’ are saved as the said notification was challenged by the KSRTC., and the private operators in W.P. No.158/2008 and connected cases. In the said Writ petitions, this Court by order dated 21.04.2011, has set aside the final notification dated 31-5-2007 impugned in W.P. No.158/2008 and connected cases and remitted the matter to the first respondent therein-State Government to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-KSRTC and other private operators and after considering the objections filed by them in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said order or production of certified copy of the said order, whichever is earlier. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners’ that the permits granted/renewed in favour of the writ petitioners’ are saved under the BTS modified scheme by notification dated 31.05.2007 cannot be accepted. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners’ that the permits granted/renewed in favour of the writ petitioners’ are saved under the BTS modified scheme by notification dated 31.05.2007 cannot be accepted. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned orders of the Tribunal setting aside the permits granted/renewed in favour of the writ petitioners’ in respect of routes, which overlap with the routes notified under the BTS scheme are justified and do not call for interference in these writ petitions and the writ petitions are devoid of merit. However, in W.P. No.4030/2004 and connected cases, by order dated 21.04.2011, the notification dated 24.07.2003 (Annexure ‘A’ to W.P. No.4030/2004) modifying the Bellary scheme and saving the permits of the petitioners’ in the said writ petitions has been set aside and in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners’ therein, it was observed that if the petitioners’ had a valid permit, they were entitled to operate, otherwise ply the transport vehicles in accordance with law for a period of three months from the date of the order (21.04.2011) while making it clear that no further extension of time would be granted to the private operators. Accordingly, we pass the following Order:- The Writ Petitions are dismissed. The impugned orders passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal setting aside the permits granted/renewed in favour of the writ petitioners’ are confirmed. However, if the writ petitioners’ hold valid permits as on today, if they are otherwise entitled to ply the transport vehicles under the permits granted/renewed in their favour in accordance with law may operate the vehicle as per permit for a period of three months from today. It is made clear that no further extension of time will be granted to the private operators.