Judgment : Shaffique, J. 1. Writ Appeal No.1943 of 2012 is filed by the second respondent in W.P.(C) No.9587 of 2012. The writ petition is filed by the second respondent herein seeking to quash Ext.P3 an order issued by the Secretary Regional Transport Authority rejecting an application for temporary permit submitted by the writ petitioner with reference to a route Vattaparambu- Angamaly- Kanakkankadavu, in the vacant timings of another vehicle. It is found that the route portion from Elavoor kavala- Angamaly is 2.6 Km, Angamaly town - Angamaly-Telk Junction is 3 kms and Athani – Kapola Junction is 0.4 kms which is an objectionable overlapping into the notified route Ernakulam - Thrissur which is in violation of G.O(P)42/2009/Trans. dated 14/07/2009. According to the writ petitioner only a portion of the proposed route overlaps a notified route and it is therefore incumbent on the first respondent to issue temporary permit under the proviso to Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act till such time as the KSRTC commences service on the said route. The petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Bairagarh, Bhopal v B.P. Upadhyava and others (AIR 1966 SC 156). In that case a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court while considering the scope of Section 62(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which permitted the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permit "to meet a particular temporary need" held that the said clause should not be given any special or restricted meaning. It is further held that "There is no antithesis between a particular temporary need and a permanent need and it is manifest that these two kinds of need may coexist on a particular route. If, therefore, the Regional Transport Authority considered that, in the circumstances of the case, there was a particular temporary need, and granted a temporary permit to the appellant, the action of the Regional Transport Authority cannot be challenged as legally invalid. Reference may be made, in this connection, to Section 62(d) which contemplates that temporary permits may be granted to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit. This subsection, therefore, contemplates that there may exist a temporary need for transport facilities on a particular route even in case of permanent need for such facilities. This subsection, therefore, contemplates that there may exist a temporary need for transport facilities on a particular route even in case of permanent need for such facilities. We are accordingly of opinion that the Regional Transport Authority was right as a matter of law in granting a temporary permit to the appellant under Section 62(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act in the circumstances of this case and the view expressed by the High Court is not correct." 2. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in K.S.R.T.C. v R.T.O Ernakulam (1997 (2) KLT 330). Reference is made to paragraph 8 of the said judgment which reads as under: "However, we have found that the Corporation has not plied sufficient number of stage carriages in all the nationalised routes during the last 25 to 30 years. Proviso to S.104 of the M.V.Act, 1988 lays down that where no application for a permit has been made by the State Transport undertaking in respect of any notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, may grant temporary permit to any person in respect of such notified area or notified route subject to the condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of that area or route. Thus, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority are not totally forbidden to grant temporary permits to private operators to ply their stage carriages in the notified routes if no application for a permit has been made by the State Transport undertaking namely the petitioner herein in respect of any notified route in pursuance of the scheme." 3. Further reference is made to paragraphs 33 and 34 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Punjab Roadways v Punjab Sahib Bus & Transport Co. (2010) 5 SCC 235) which reads as under: "33. Section 104 of the Act specifically restricts the grant of permits in respect of notified area or notified route. The said provision is extracted hereunder:-" xxxxxxx "34. (2010) 5 SCC 235) which reads as under: "33. Section 104 of the Act specifically restricts the grant of permits in respect of notified area or notified route. The said provision is extracted hereunder:-" xxxxxxx "34. The above mentioned provision states where a scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of Section 100 in respect of any notified area or notified route, the STA or the RTA as the case may be, shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. An exception has been carved out in the proviso to Section 104 stating, where no application for permit has been made by the STU in respect of any notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme, the STA or the RTA, as the case may be, may grant temporary permits to any person in respect of any such notified area or notified route subject to the condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of permit to the STU in respect of that area or route. In our view same is the situation in respect of a case where an STU in spite of grant of permit does not operate the service or surrenders the permit granted or is not utilising the permit. In such a situation it should be deemed that no application for permit has been made by the STU and it is open to the RTA to grant temporary permit if there is a temporary need. By granting regular permits to the private operators the RTA will be upsetting the ratio fixed under the scheme which is legally impermissible." 4. The learned Single Judge found that since the appellant KSRTC had not been granted a permit in respect of a notified route the authorities are perfectly within their rights to grant temporary permits to other private operators subject to the superior right of the KSRTC to seek a permit in the notified route. When such a permit is granted to KSRTC the private operators would have to stop operation. It is further held that in the absence of any service being conducted by the KSRTC it is open for the authorities to issue temporary permits to private operators on the notified route. When such a permit is granted to KSRTC the private operators would have to stop operation. It is further held that in the absence of any service being conducted by the KSRTC it is open for the authorities to issue temporary permits to private operators on the notified route. Hence the learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P3 and directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's application for temporary permit afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment. 5. W.A.No.1957 of 2012 is also filed by KSRTC, the second respondent in W.P.C.No.10760 of 2012 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge taking a similar view as in W.P.C.No.9587 of 2012. In that case also Ext.P3 was the impugned order by which the RTA rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that the overlapping exceeds the permissible limit in respect of a route between Don Bosco -Keezhmadu - HMT Junction which overlaps 9.5 Km from Thottumugham Junction -Aluva - Chunagamvely. The violation is with reference to G.O.(P) No.42/2009/Trans dated 14/07/2009. In the above writ petition also identical contentions were raised by the writ petitioner as contended in the earlier writ petition. 6. It is not disputed that in both the above cases the temporary permit applied for was only for a period of four months and though the period covered by the application for temporary permit has already expired, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant KSRTC would submit that the judgment of the learned Single Judge has severe consequences as far as KSRTC is concerned and the judgment will be relied upon by similarly placed persons namely stage carriage operators for obtaining temporary permits in respect of routes which overlaps more than the permissible limits. Hence we are of the view that since the judgment has far-reaching consequences the same is required to be considered on merits. 7. It is not in dispute that a scheme had been framed by the Government as per notification dated 14/07/2009. Ext.R2(a) is the notification. According to KSRTC in respect of routes mentioned in the Annexure to the notification, overlapping is permissible only to the extent it is permitted as per the notification and no deviation can be made in respect of the said notification. The learned counsel for appellant relies upon clause 5 of the notification which reads as under: "5. According to KSRTC in respect of routes mentioned in the Annexure to the notification, overlapping is permissible only to the extent it is permitted as per the notification and no deviation can be made in respect of the said notification. The learned counsel for appellant relies upon clause 5 of the notification which reads as under: "5. If the operation shall be to the exclusion of other services. (a) Whether such exclusion Partial till the existing private services shall be complete or operating on the routes are replaces as partial provided in item 4 above. (b) If such exclusion shall The existing services issued with permit on be partial, the sector of or before 9/5/2006 and after 9/5/2006 shall the route from where be permitted to continue as in Clause 4 other services are to be above till they are replaced by buses owned excluded and by the State Transport Undertaking. (c) Whether it is proposed Yes, on the portion of the route permitted to allow other service to to operate as in clause 4 above. Permits pick or set down will also be granted to private stage passengers between any carriages of other routes permitting them two places on the route to overlap 5 km or 5% of the length of covered by the scheme their own routes, whichever is less on the notified routes, for the purposes of intersection." 8. It is therefore argued that when Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act imposes restriction for granting permits in notified areas or notified routes, the provision has to be strictly complied with. The proviso to Section 104 permits only grant of temporary permits to a person in respect of a notified area or notified route subject to the condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of that route. It is argued that when a scheme has been formulated and when the scheme itself clearly indicates the nature of overlapping that is permissible on the notified route, a temporary permit cannot be issued in violation of clause 5(c) of the scheme. 9. It is argued that when a scheme has been formulated and when the scheme itself clearly indicates the nature of overlapping that is permissible on the notified route, a temporary permit cannot be issued in violation of clause 5(c) of the scheme. 9. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Adarsh Travels Bus Service and another v State of U.P and others [(1985) 4 SCC 557] considered a similar issue in paragraphs 7, 8, 14 and 15 of the judgment which reads as under : 7. A careful and diligent perusal of Section 68-C, Section 68-D(3) and Section 68-FF in the light of the definition of the expression "route" in Section 2 (28-A) appears to make it manifestly clear that once a scheme is published under Section 68-D in relation to any area or route or portion thereof, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial of other persons or otherwise, no person other than the State Transport Undertaking may operate on the notified area or notified route except as provided in the scheme itself. A necessary consequence of these provisions is that no private operator can operate his vehicle on any part or portion of a notified area or notified route unless authorised so to do by the terms of the scheme itself. He may not operate on any part or portion of the notified route or area on the mere ground that the permit as originally granted to him covered the notified route or area. We are not impressed by the various submissions made on behalf of the appellants by their several counsel. The foremost argument was that based on the great inconvenience which may be caused to the travelling public if a passenger is not allowed to travel, say, straight from A to B on a stage carriage, to ply which on the route A to B a person X has a permit, merely because a part of the route from C to D somewhere between the points A and B is part of a notified route. The answer to the question is that this is a factor which will necessarily be taken into consideration by the State Transport Undertaking before publishing the scheme under Section 68-C, by the Government under Section 68-D when considering the objections to the scheme and thereafter either by the State Transport Undertaking or by the Government when the inconveniences experienced by the travelling public are brought to their notice. The question is one of weighing in the balance the advantages conferred on the public by the nationalisation of the route C-D against the inconveniences suffered by the public wanting to travel straight from A to B. On the other hand it is quite well known that under the guise of the so-called "corridor restrictions" permits over longer routes which cover shorter notified routes or "overlapping" parts of notified routes are more often than not misutilised since it is well nigh impossible to keep a proper check at every point of the route. It is also well known that oftentimes permits for plying stage carriages from a point a short distance beyond one terminus to a point a short distance beyond another terminus of a notified route have been applied for and granted subject to the so-called "corridor restrictions" which are but mere ruses or traps to obtain permits and to frustrate the scheme. If indeed there is any need for protecting the travelling public from inconvenience as suggested by the learned counsel we have no doubt that the State Transport Undertaking and the Government will make a sufficient provision in the scheme itself to avoid inconvenience being caused to the travelling public. 8. One of the submissions urged was that a route, according to definition, meant a line drawn between two termini and, therefore, route AB cannot be the same route as CD even if C&D happened to be two points on the highway from A to B. It was argued that if route AB was different from route CD, the nationalisation of route CD had no effect whatsoever on the permits to ply stage carriages on the route AB. This argument is specious and is only to be stated to be rejected. In fact, whatever argument was open to the learned counsel on the basis of the decision of the Privy Council in Kelani Valley Motor Transit Co. Ltd. v. Colombo-Ratnapura Omnibus Co. This argument is specious and is only to be stated to be rejected. In fact, whatever argument was open to the learned counsel on the basis of the decision of the Privy Council in Kelani Valley Motor Transit Co. Ltd. v. Colombo-Ratnapura Omnibus Co. Ltd is no longer open to them in view of the definition of route inserted as Section 2(28-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Amending Act of 1969. We do not have the slightest doubt that route AB covers and includes every part of the particular highway from A to B traversed by the motor vehicle along that route. It is impossible to accept the argument that only the termini have to be looked at and the rest of the highway ignored in order to discover a route for the purposes of the Motor Vehicles Act. Equally without substance is the plea that if an operator does not pick up or set down any passenger between the two points of the common sector he cannot be said to be plying a stage carriage between those two points. The argument is entirely devoid of substance for the simple reason that the operator does charge the passenger for the distance travelled along the highway between these two points also. Another argument which was advanced and which is also lacking in substance is that a complete exclusion of private operators from the common sector would be violative of Article 14 and that it would be ultra vires Section 68-D. We are unable to see how either Article 14 or Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act hit a scheme which provides for complete exclusion of private operators from the whole or any part of the notified area. Almost all these submissions have been considered and met by the majority judgment in Mysore State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal to which we shall presently refer." X X X X X 14. In Mysore State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal, all the earlier cases were noticed and it was held: (SCC pp. v. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal to which we shall presently refer." X X X X X 14. In Mysore State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal, all the earlier cases were noticed and it was held: (SCC pp. 757-58, paras 10 and 12) "It is, therefore, apparent that where a private transport owner makes an application to operate on a route which overlaps even a portion of the notified route i.e. where the part of the highway to be used by the private transport owner traverses on a line on the same highway on 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. * * * This Court has, consistently taken the view that if there is a prohibition to operate on a notified route or routes no licences can be granted to any private operator whose route traversed or overlapped any part or whole of that notified route. The intersection of the notified route may not, in our view, amount to traversing or overlapping the route because the prohibition imposed applied to a whole or part of the route on the highway on the same line of the route. An intersection cannot be said to be traversing the same line, as it cuts across it." The learned Judges expressly dissented from the decision of Beg and Chandrachud, JJ. in Mysore State Transport Corpn. v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and approved the decisions of the court in Nilkanth Prasad case and Abdul Khader case. We agree with the view taken by this Court in Mysore State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal and dissent from the view taken in Mysore State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal. We however wish to introduce a note of caution. When preparing and publishing the scheme under Section 68-C and approving or modifying the scheme under Section 68-D care must be taken to protect, as far as possible, the interest of the travelling public who could in the past travel from one point to another without having to change from one service to another en route. When preparing and publishing the scheme under Section 68-C and approving or modifying the scheme under Section 68-D care must be taken to protect, as far as possible, the interest of the travelling public who could in the past travel from one point to another without having to change from one service to another en route. This can always be done by appropriate clauses exempting operators already having permits over common sector from the scheme and by incorporating appropriate conditional clauses in the scheme to enable them to ply their vehicles over common sectors without picking up or setting down passengers on the common sectors. If such a course is not feasible the State Legislature may intervene and provide some other alternative as was done by the Uttar Pradesh Legislature by the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Act 27 of 1976 by Section 5 of which the competent authority could authorise the holder of a permit of a stage carriage to ply his stage carriage on a portion of a notified route subject to terms and conditions including payment of licence fee. There may be other methods of not inconveniencing through passengers but that is entirely a matter for the State Legislature, the State Government and the State Transport Undertaking. But we do wish to emphasise that good and sufficient care must be taken to see that the travelling public is not to be needlessly inconvenienced. 15. Shri R.K. Garg urged that the provisions of Chapter IV and Chapter IV-A must be reconciled in such a manner as to allow permit holders to ply their stage carriages notwithstanding that parts of their route are also parts of notified routes. We fail to understand the argument having regard to the express legislative pronouncement in Section 68-B that the provisions of Chapter IV-A and the rules and orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter IV of the Act." 10. In U.P State Roadways Transport Corpn. Lucknow v Anwar Ahmed and others [(1997) 3 SCC 191] the Supreme Court held in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 as under. "6. In view of the settled legal position that once the scheme has been approved and notified, right to ply stage carriages by private operators on the notified area, routes or portions thereof is totally frozen. Lucknow v Anwar Ahmed and others [(1997) 3 SCC 191] the Supreme Court held in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 as under. "6. In view of the settled legal position that once the scheme has been approved and notified, right to ply stage carriages by private operators on the notified area, routes or portions thereof is totally frozen. Therefore, they have no right to claim any grant of stage carriage, temporary or contract carriage permits thereunder on the said notified area, routes or portions thereof except to the extent saved by the scheme with restrictions imposed thereunder. Shri Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Counsel, sought to rely upon proviso to Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") to justify the orders which provides as under:" xxxxxxx "7. It would, therefore, be seen that where the scheme has been published under subsection (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. Thus, the appellant-Corporation has the exclusive right or monopoly to ply their stage carriages and obtain the required permit as per the scheme. The proviso gives only a limited breath of life, namely, until the Corporation puts the vehicles on the notified routes as per the scheme, temporary permits may be granted to private operators. Thereby, it would be clear that temporary inconvenience to travelling public is sought to be averted till the permits are taken and vehicles are put on the route by the appellant. Therefore, the temporary permits will have only limited breath of life. Private operators are attempting to wear the mask of inconvenience to travelling public to infiltrate into forbidden notified area, route or portion thereof to sabotage the scheme. The permits were taken by the appellant and the vehicles are put on the route in terms of the scheme. Therefore, the direction given by the High Court at the pain of contempt is obviously illegal. It is stated by Shri V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, on instruction that the appellant is prepared to take all the permits required on the routes. 8. Therefore, the direction given by the High Court at the pain of contempt is obviously illegal. It is stated by Shri V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, on instruction that the appellant is prepared to take all the permits required on the routes. 8. But the crucial question is whether a new route can be introduced by fusing two notified routes and temporary permits sought to be obtained on carved-out route? This device is obviously impermissible to enter into frozen area or route or portion thereof through backdoor. The scheme is law by itself and until it is varied according to law, no private operator has any right to camouflage any device to obtain temporary permits. Under these circumstances, action taken by the respondents to obtain temporary permits is obviously ultra vires and authorities have no jurisdiction to grant such permits. The altered or modified routes are contrary to the approved scheme, since they have been occupied by two notified routes and to be operated as per the scheme." 11. In Karnataka S.R.T.C v. Ashrafulla Khan [(2002) 2 SCC 560], the Supreme Court followed the Constitution Bench judgment in Adarsh Travels Bus Service (Supra) and held as under: "24. In our opinion there is a clear and obvious distinction between an "overlapping" and an "intersection" for purposes of Chapter IV-A of the Repealed Act. In the case of an overlapping a stage carriage is to ply on the same line of travel on a portion of a notified route and it is immaterial whether it is a small distance of four or five kilometres falling within the limits of a village or town. Whereas in the case of an intersection a non-notified route only cuts across a notified route for onward journey. It is only to enable a private operator plying on a non-notified route to a non-notified route to cut across a notified route. The exceptions sought to be made by the Full Bench in the form of municipal limit or village limit is totally erroneous and that the same defeats the very object behind the Scheme which is for total exclusion of private operation. The consistent view of this Court has throughout been that the Scheme is a law and the same has to be preserved and protected in public interest. The consistent view of this Court has throughout been that the Scheme is a law and the same has to be preserved and protected in public interest. Any other view taken contrary to the said view would amount to violating the integrity of an approved Scheme under Section 68-D of the Repealed Act. Any slight deviation in the Scheme may frustrate the entire Scheme. 25. An example posed by the Full Bench in its judgment as to what happens when an operator on a non-notified route has to cut across a notified route by taking a `U' turn on a notified route and then taking left turn to enter on a non-notified route, was not appropriate. In such a case, it may not amount to overlapping. It would be only intersection. There may be a crossing where there is an island in the centre and a private operator in order to go from a non-notified route to another non-notified route has to make a semicircle of a notified route. In that case also, it would not be overlapping, but it would be an intersection because it only cuts across the notified route because of the size of the crossing or traffic regulations. 26. Merely because a private operator has to traverse on the line of a notified route for 5 km or for 1.5 km only is no ground to dispense with the mandate of law. Such an overlapping also cannot be sustained on the ground that it relates to a small town. If such a view of law as propounded by the Full Bench is to be accepted, it is difficult to be applied where a notified route passes through bigger towns where involvement is of 10 to 20 km within that town. 27. The view taken by the Full Bench that where traversing on a notified route is necessary to continue journey on a non-notified route could be regarded as an intersection is an erroneous view of law. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to enforce rule of law and not pass an order or direction which is contrary to what has been injuncted by law. 28. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to enforce rule of law and not pass an order or direction which is contrary to what has been injuncted by law. 28. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the view taken by the High Court was contrary to the law which stood settled by this Court in Adarsh Travels case and still holds the field and, therefore, it deserves to be set aside. 29. Before we part with the case, we would like to observe that the need and convenience of the travelling public is of paramount consideration under the Act. A situation may arise when the Transport Undertaking may be found not catering to the needs of the travelling public. In such a situation, on representation of the travelling public, the State Undertaking or the Government, as the case may be, may consider the matter and provide adequate transport services if it is required. In case the Government finds that the Undertaking lacks vehicles or other infrastructure to provide an efficient and well-coordinated transport services to the travelling public, it may modify the Scheme as to permit private operators to ply vehicles on such route or routes. In any case it is always permissible to the legislature to amend law by providing private operators to run an efficient and well-coordinated transport services on such route or routes on payment of adequate royalty to the State Government." 12. Another judgment on the issue is U.P.SRTC andanother v Sanjida Bano and Others [(2005) 10 SCC 280]wherein it is held as under: "The respondents seek protection under the proviso. The applicability of the proviso is attracted "where no application for a permit has been made by the State transport undertaking in respect of any notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme". It is not disputed that the State transport undertaking has certainly made an application for permit in accordance with the scheme and is operating on the route. Whether or not the number of buses and the trips operated by the State transport undertaking were enough to cater to the volume of need of the commuting public, is not germane to the applicability of the proviso. The scheme provides for as many permits as needed being lifted by the State transport undertaking. Whether or not the number of buses and the trips operated by the State transport undertaking were enough to cater to the volume of need of the commuting public, is not germane to the applicability of the proviso. The scheme provides for as many permits as needed being lifted by the State transport undertaking. The State transport undertaking was operating 36 trips on the date of the order of the High Court and is now operating 40 trips, as stated by the learned counsel for the appellants at the Bar. However, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has disputed the correctness of this statement and submitted that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority had found only 25 trips being in operation. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to hold that in spite of the appellant Corporation operating on the route resort can be had to the proviso to Section 104 of the Act for granting temporary permits." 13. Having regard to these factual and legal position the question that arises for consideration is whether a temporary permit can be granted in a particular route which is not a notified route under the scheme when the route applied for overlaps a notified route to the extent of more than 5% of the total length of the route applied for or 5 kms whichever is less. 14. Admittedly, in the above two writ petitions the routes which they have applied for are not notified routes whereas the route overlaps a notified route namely Ernakulam-Thrissur which is admittedly a notified route and several buses are being operated in the said route with valid permit issued by the competent authority. Therefore, going by the scheme of the notification, Clause 5(c) squarely applies and the overlapping can only be to the extent of 5 Kms or 5% of the route length whichever is less. In both the cases on hand the overlapping exceeded the permissible overlapping. 15. The writ petitioners rely upon the proviso to Section 104. Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under: "104. In both the cases on hand the overlapping exceeded the permissible overlapping. 15. The writ petitioners rely upon the proviso to Section 104. Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under: "104. Restriction on grant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route --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: Provided that where no application for a permit has been made by the State Transport Undertaking in respect of any notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, may grant temporary permits to any person in respect of such notified area or notified route subject to the condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of that area or route." Their main argument is that in so far as the K.S.R.T.C. is not operating in the route specified by them, the authorities are under obligation to provide temporary permit in respect of the said route. The learned counsel for the second respondent/writ petitioners relies upon Clause 4 of the notification which reads as under. 4. Whether the services are to Yes, the permits issued in the be operated by the State private sector on or before Transport Undertaking to 09/05/2006 will be allowed to the exclusion of other continue till the dates of expiry of persons or otherwise. the respective permits. Thereafter regular permits will be granted to them. When the State Transport Undertaking applies for introducing new services in the above routes, corresponding number of existing private stage carriage permits in the said routes whose permits expire first after filing application by the State Transport Undertaking shall not be renewed. As regards permits issued after 9/5/2006 temporary permits alone shall be issued afresh on expiry in these routes or any portion thereof till such time the State Transport Undertaking replaces with new services. As regards permits issued after 9/5/2006 temporary permits alone shall be issued afresh on expiry in these routes or any portion thereof till such time the State Transport Undertaking replaces with new services. The decision of the State Transport Undertaking to apply for permits to replace the existing Stage Carriages as above shall be taken by the Chief Executive of the State Transport Undertaking. 16. The argument of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent is that Clause 4 of the notification gives them right to continue operation on the basis of temporary permits till K.S.R.T.C. exercises their right to operate in the said route. Therefore according to the writ petitioners they have a right to get temporary permits in a specified route even if there is overlapping as the K.S.R.T.C. is not operating in the route which they are operating and for which they have submitted their application. The learned counsel also relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v Regional Transport Authority and another [(2005) 4 SCC 391). Paragraphs 7 to 10 are relied upon which reads as under: "7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Scheme covers the entire mofussil service which means that all the routes falling within the particular mofussil service are covered under the Scheme. This will cover the overlapping routes and the town service routes. Unless it is so, the object of the Scheme, which is to provide cheap and efficient service to the commuters, will stand defeated. "Service" is a word having wider connotation as compared to the word "route". Route may mean a particular route while service would include all the routes in a particular mofussil. When the entire service in the mofussil area is nationalised, all the routes falling within the mofussil automatically get nationalised, which will cover the town service routes also. As a result of nationalisation of the service no permits can be issued for operating transport vehicles in favour of private operators. He has drawn our attention to the definition of the word "permit" contained in clause (31) of Section 2 of the Act according to which permit means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorising the use of motor vehicle as a transport vehicle. He has drawn our attention to the definition of the word "permit" contained in clause (31) of Section 2 of the Act according to which permit means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorising the use of motor vehicle as a transport vehicle. In view of this definition of the word "permit", it is submitted, it means that no one can ply a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle without a valid permit. The net effect of nationalisation of the service is that the private operators become disentitled to obtain permits for plying vehicles for hire. 8. At this stage, we may also quote the definition of the words "route" and "stage carriage" as contained in clauses (38) and (40) of Section 2 of the Act: 2. (38) `route' means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another; (39) * * * (40) `stage carriage' means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey;" 9. Respondent 3 applied for permit with respect to a town service route from D.N.R. College (Bhimavaram) to Srinvavruksham. The application of Respondent 3 was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority. According to Respondent 3 he fell within Exception 2 under the note appended to the Scheme and, therefore, he was entitled to get a permit for the town service route. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent 3 submits that the Scheme applies only to mofussil service and town service routes are not affected by the Scheme. Respondent 3 staked his claim to the permit on two grounds: (1) that the town service routes are not covered under the Scheme, and (2) the exception regarding town service route will include not only the existing operators but also those who apply for fresh permits. 10. Regarding the first point urged on behalf of Respondent 3, one needs to consider the Scheme, particularly clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Scheme, which have been quoted hereinbefore. Under clause 3, the entire mofussil service is covered. "Service", as already stated, is a term of wider connotation. 10. Regarding the first point urged on behalf of Respondent 3, one needs to consider the Scheme, particularly clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Scheme, which have been quoted hereinbefore. Under clause 3, the entire mofussil service is covered. "Service", as already stated, is a term of wider connotation. Then, with reference to clauses 4 and 5 of the Scheme, it would be seen that there is complete exclusion of all other persons holding stage carriage permits on the proposed route as well as those holding stage carriage permits on the routes overlapping completely or partially with the proposed route. Likewise, clause 5, dealing with number of trips to be performed on each route by State transport undertaking to the exclusion of other persons, provides for complete exclusion of others holding stage carriage permits on the overlapping routes as well. The only exception has been made with respect to the five categories mentioned in the note to the Scheme." 17. Let us now examine the legal aspects involved in the matter. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Adarsh Travels Bus Service's case (supra) has held that if a vehicle is to ply on the same line of travel on a notified route, it is an overlapping and if a non-notified route cuts across a notified route for its onward journey, it is an intersection. The judgment is followed by a learned single judge of this court in KSRTC, Tvm. v. Regional Transport Authority, Kollam and Others [2013(2) KHC 278). It is held that no permit can be granted to operate on a notified route or a portion thereof if the Scheme prohibits such operation by a private operator and the only exception is where a private operator has to intersect a notified route. An intersection of a notified route does not amount to traversing or overlapping the notified route because the prohibition imposed applies to the whole or part of the route on the same line only. 18. In U.P. State Roadways Transport Corpn.'s case (supra) the Supreme Court held that the proviso to Section 104 gives only a limited breath of life, namely, until the Corporation puts the vehicles on the notified routes as per the scheme. 18. In U.P. State Roadways Transport Corpn.'s case (supra) the Supreme Court held that the proviso to Section 104 gives only a limited breath of life, namely, until the Corporation puts the vehicles on the notified routes as per the scheme. It is held that once the scheme has been approved and notified the right to apply stage carriages by private operators on the notified route or area or portions thereof is totally frozen. They, therefore have no right to claim any grant of stage carriage, temporary or contract carriage permits thereunder on the said notified route/ routes or portions thereof except to the extent saved by the scheme with the restrictions imposed thereunder. The issue on hand is again answered by the Supreme Court by posing a question as to whether a new route can be produced by fusing two notified routes and temporary permits sought to be obtained on carved out route. The Supreme Court answered the question by opining that such a device to enter into frozen route or portion thereof through back door is impermissible. The scheme is law by itself and it is made according to law, no private operator has any right to, flash any device to obtain temporary permits. Same is the view taken in Sanjida Bano (Supra) and Ashrafulla Khan (Supra). 19. The learned single judge relied upon two judgments which did not consider the issue on hand in the proper perspective. The Division Bench judgment relied upon found that the Corporation has not operated sufficient number of stage carriages in all the nationalized routes during the last 25 to 30 years and therefore proviso to section 104 of MV Act applies. It is also found that no application for a permit has been made by the State Transport Undertaking in respect of any notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme. Apparently clause 5(c) of the present scheme was not considered by the division bench in that case. Same is the situation in respect of the Supreme Court judgment relied upon by the learned single judge. In the present case there is a scheme in operation which clearly spells out the manner of overlapping that is permissible. Apparently clause 5(c) of the present scheme was not considered by the division bench in that case. Same is the situation in respect of the Supreme Court judgment relied upon by the learned single judge. In the present case there is a scheme in operation which clearly spells out the manner of overlapping that is permissible. Once the scheme is in force and the overlapping is permitted only to a certain extent, it is not possible for this court to permit grant of temporary permits based on the proviso to section 104 and permit overlapping beyond the terms of the scheme notified by the government. The benefit of the proviso to section 104 can be granted only in instances where there is no scheme and where no permits have been issued in such route. The proviso to section 104 cannot have any independent application and it is subject to the scheme framed by the government in respect of nationalized routes. Such being the situation we are of the view that the learned single judge has not applied the provisions of the scheme to the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence the authorities were justified in rejecting the application for temporary permit. Therefore the judgments of the learned single judge is liable to be set aside and we hold that the right to apply for temporary permits under the proviso to section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act will be subject to the restrictions imposed under clause 5(c) of Ext.R2(a) scheme. Clause 4 of the scheme does not give any special advantage to the petitioners. It is always subject to clause 5(c). The judgment in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation case (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for writ petitioners has no application to the facts on hand. 20. In that view of the matter, we allow the above appeals and the judgment of the learned single judge in the writ petitions are set aside.