JUDGMENT : Mr. K. Vinod Chandran, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his application for the grant of four months temporary permit in the route Kaloor - Mattancherry and assails Exhibit P1 order of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority (for brevity "RTA"), as affirmed by Exhibit P5 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for brevity "STAT"), Ernakulam. 2. The petitioner, the owner of a stage carriage, applied for the grant of temporary permit in the vacant timings of another stage carriage, which had abandoned service long back. The application was rejected by Exhibit P1, for two reasons. Exhibit P1 found that the total length of the route sought for by the petitioner is 26 Kms. and there is objectionable overlapping of 10 Kms., in the notified routes of Trivandrum - Palakkad and Trivandrum - Kannoor Schemes. The scheme is notified by virtue of G.O.(P) No.42/2009/Trans. dated 14.07.2009; produced as Exhibit R3(a) in the present writ petition. Further, Exhibit P1 also found that to grant temporary permit there should be in existence a valid regular permit and the permit sought to be substituted having lapsed long before, the grant of temporary permit cannot be allowed. Exhibit P5 upheld the said order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the permits issued in the Ernakulam city area is as per a notification issued under Section 71(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the fact that there is a vacancy in one of the regular permits would itself indicate that there is a need for operation in the said route. When the notification under Section 71(3) of the Act specifies the number of permits that could be granted in the city area; in this case, according to the petitioner 700 in number, then the same cannot be altered by a Scheme under Chapter VI of the Act. It is also contended that neither is there a notification brought out superseding or altering the earlier notification under Section 71(3); nor is it evident from Exhibit R3(a) that the said notification intended to supersede the earlier notification under Section 71(3). It is also contended that neither is there a notification brought out superseding or altering the earlier notification under Section 71(3); nor is it evident from Exhibit R3(a) that the said notification intended to supersede the earlier notification under Section 71(3). The petitioner also contends that if Exhibit R3(a) is to be considered to be a Scheme brought in, in supersession of the notification under Section 71(3), then there could be no private buses plying within the city area, since all of them are plying within the notified routes indicated in Exhibit P1. In such circumstance, it is the contention based on the decision in (M.P.S.R.T. Corporation v. R.T. Authority [ AIR 1966 SC 156 ]) that a temporary need co-exists with the permanent need. That is to say, when there is a regular permit, that contemplates the need for a service in the said route and in the event of a vacancy in the route caused by the non-operation of the permit, then necessarily it postulates a temporary need. Hence, the petitioner maintains that the application filed under Section 87 of the Act for a temporary permit has to be considered as an application under sub-clause (c) of section (1) of Section 87 and the same was liable to be allowed. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation as well as the learned Government Pleader contends that vacancy now projected by the petitioner is not one arising normally on the discontinuance of a vehicle having a regular permit. The regular permit itself was abandoned long back and the fact that there was no service after the abandonment by the regular permit holder demonstrates that there is no temporary need as contemplated under Section 87 of the Act. The respondent-Corporation also contends that Chapter VI of the Act overrides Chapter V and any other law for the time being in force and; in the notified area or notified route, wherein a Scheme is published, there is a clear restriction under Section 104 of Chapter VI and the grant of temporary permits can only be as per the proviso to Section 104. The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation relies on (A.P. SRTC v. Regional Transport Authority [ (2005) 4 SCC 391 ]) to contend that even with respect to a case wherein city routes were not specifically notified under the Scheme; the Supreme Court found that in the event of an overlapping of a notified route, there shall be restriction on the grant of temporary permits. The learned counsel also relies on the decision in (Managing Director, KSRTC, Tvm. v. Secretary, RTA [ 2013(3) KHC 820 (DB)]), to contend that in a similar situation a Division Bench of this Court held it in favour of the Corporation and the dictum laid down therein squarely applies to the present case. 5. The entire case of the petitioner is built on the notification under Section 71(3), which, according to the petitioner, permits 700 regular permits in the city area of Ernakulam. Submissions are made to the effect that the notification prescribes the continuance of 700 regular permits within the city area, as a clear mandate. It is to be mentioned that the notification has not been produced. Even if, for argument sake, it is assumed that 700 stage carriages have been permitted to ply within the city area of Ernakulam, one has to look at the provisions under which the notification has been brought out, to understand as to whether there is a mandate as contended by the petitioner or not. Clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 71 confers power on the State Government to bring out a notification limiting the number of stage carriages operating in city routes, having regard to various factors, viz., number of vehicles, road conditions, etc. Sub-section (3) of Section 71 is in the nature of restriction of the number of stage carriages and definitely does not contemplate a mandate. The fact that 700 stage carriages have been specified as per the notification issued by the State Government, is only a restriction on the authority empowered to grant permits and does not indicate a mandate for issuance and continuance of such 700 permits. In the context of the same, the petitioner also cannot merely assume the presumption of a temporary need merely on there being a vacancy in one of the regular permits. 6. Chapter VI, definitely going by Section 98, has an overriding effect. In the context of the same, the petitioner also cannot merely assume the presumption of a temporary need merely on there being a vacancy in one of the regular permits. 6. Chapter VI, definitely going by Section 98, has an overriding effect. No specific supersession need be made in the Scheme, since the overriding effect is statutorily mandated. Section 104 restricts the authorities from granting any permits in respect of a notified area or route, wherein a Scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of Section 100. Grant of permits can only be in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. Hence, the grant of temporary permit is also regulated by the proviso, which permits such grant only when no application for permit has been made by the State Transport Undertaking in respect of the notified area or route in respect to an approved Scheme. That there is a scheme in operation, as is evident from Exhibit R3(a), and the respondent-Corporation is plying a number of stage carriages in the notified routes is beyond dispute. The mere vacancy of a permit granted in pursuance of a notification under Section 71(3) cannot, by that alone, entitle another stage carriage operator to seek for a temporary permit when the route sought for objectionably overlaps the notified route as per the Scheme. 7. 2013 (3) KHC 820 (supra) is a binding precedent for the above proposition. The question that arose for consideration in that case is also 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. It was held so by the Division Bench after noticing a large number of decisions of the Supreme Court: "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. 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 nationalised 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". 8. Exhibit R3(a) is the Scheme which is relied on by the respondent-Corporation as one brought out under Section 100 of Chapter VI of the Act. In the schedule, clause-4, it is provided that when the services are to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking to the exclusion of other persons, then the permits issued in the private sector on or before 9.5.2006 will be allowed to continue till the date of expiry of the respective permits and thereafter regular permits will be granted to them. This is the reason why the private operators ply buses in the city limits even now. However, when the State Transport Undertaking applies for introducing new services in the said routes, then the corresponding number of existing private stage carriage permits in the said routes, will have to cease its operation on expiry of their permits. Always the permits first in point of time to expire after the State Transport Undertaking files its application, being subject to such non-renewal. 9. Both the learned counsel agree, that clause-4 has been stayed by a division Bench; but only on the non-renewal of such permits after an application is filed by the State Transport Undertaking. The contention of the petitioner that if the reasoning in Exhibit P1 is accepted, no private operator can ply within the city limits of Ernakulam is belied by the fact that the Scheme itself permits private operators who are issued permits on or before 9.5.2006; to continue. The contention of the petitioner that if the reasoning in Exhibit P1 is accepted, no private operator can ply within the city limits of Ernakulam is belied by the fact that the Scheme itself permits private operators who are issued permits on or before 9.5.2006; to continue. Clause 5(c) is the provision in the Scheme which provides for objectionable overlapping of 5 Kms., or 5% of the total length of the route, the lesser of which being taken for upholding the objection. The Division Bench in the above cited decision has also specifically extracted Clause-5 and the appeal was allowed inter alia based on the said provision. 10. In the instant case, the route in which the temporary permit is sought for is between Kaloor and Mattancherry. The objectionable overlapping is between Kaloor and Thoppumpady; which admittedly falls within the notified routes as mentioned in Exhibit P1. The total length of the route is 26 Kms. and the distance between Kaloor and Thoppumpady is 10 Kms. Going by Clause 5 (c) of Exhibit R3(a) Scheme, the objectionable overlapping being above 5 Kms., there cannot be a grant of permit unless otherwise as stipulated in the proviso to Section 104 of the Act. The writ petition, hence, fails and it is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to suffer their costs.