JUDGMENT : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. The unsuccessful petitioner inW.P. No. 3910 of 2005, aggrieved by the order dated 10-10-2014 of the learned Single Judgedismissing the petition has presented these intra-Court appeals invokingSection 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The learned Single Judgeanswered in the negative the following question: "Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal holding that grant ofcountersignature to the stage carriage permit of the petitioner for the routeTirupati to Bangalore and back, was illegal as it overlapped the approved KolarPocket Scheme, as modified from time to time warranting interference by thisCourt?" 2. Facts briefly stated are: I. T.N. Ramalinga Reddy, father ofthe appellant obtained a stage carriage permit bearing No. 33/65 issued by theState Transport Authority (for short, 'STA'), Andhra Pradesh, valid from14-12-1965 to 13-12-1970 for the route Tirupati to Bangalore and back (oneround trip) under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act No. 4 of 1939) (forshort, 'MV Act') duly countersigned by the STA, Bangalore. II. The Government of Mysoreissued notification dated 10-1-1968 and exercising jurisdiction undersub-section (3) of Section 63-D of MV Act, published an approved scheme, knownas 'Kolar Pocket Scheme', a route scheme, creating a monopoly in the Statetransport undertaking on specified routes in the State of Karnataka, renderingthe stage carriage permits of private operators, ineffective insofar as theoverlapping portion of the notified route, while treating the said permitholder as a 'saved operator'. T.N. Ramalinga Reddy was a 'saved operator' beingthe holder of the stage carriage Permit No. 33/65 and the route overlapping thenotified route was rendered ineffective. III. The Government of Karnataka published in the Gazette dated 1-9-1975 , the notification dated 28-8-1975 , being the agreemententered into with the Government of Andhra Pradesh to regulate the operation ofstage carriage services on inter-State routes between the two States,exercising jurisdiction under sub-section (3-B) of Section 63 of the MV Act,over grant of countersignature of permits. Part A of the appendix is astatement showing the inter-State routes to be operated by Karnataka operatorswhile Part-B by Andhra Pradesh operators. Sl. No. 35 in Part B makes referenceto the route from Tirupati to Bangalore via Peelru, Kalkeri, Chintamani, Kaivara Cross, H-cross, Vijayapura,Devanahalli, Yelahanka, Hebbala, for a distance of 138.4 kms. in Andhra Pradesh and 135.2 kms. in Karnataka, totalling to 273.6 kms. Sl. No. 35 in Part B makes referenceto the route from Tirupati to Bangalore via Peelru, Kalkeri, Chintamani, Kaivara Cross, H-cross, Vijayapura,Devanahalli, Yelahanka, Hebbala, for a distance of 138.4 kms. in Andhra Pradesh and 135.2 kms. in Karnataka, totalling to 273.6 kms. with a minimum of one permit and a maxim oftwo and a minimum of one round trip and a maximum of two, as also thecorresponding minimum and maximum number of daily services in kilometers,within both States. IV. The father of the appellantfiled an application on 21-6-1983 before the STA, Hyderabad for grant of freshstage carriage permit for the route Tirupati to Bangalore with one round tripin the existing vacancy at Sl. No. 35 in Part B of the appendix to theagreement published on 1-9-1975, on the premise that he was a 'saved operator'under the 'Kolar Pocket Scheme' operating one round trip on the said routeunder Permit No. 33/1965. That application though rejected at the firstinstance was allowed on 21-6-1983, which order was called in question by the2nd respondent-Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'KSRTC')as also by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'APS RTC ')in R.P. Nos. 185 and 186, respectively, before the State Transport AppellateTribunal (for short, 'STAT'), Andhra Pradesh, whence by common order dated20-1-1984, was allowed and proceeding remitted for reconsideration. On remand,the application when rejected by order dated 20-4- 1989 , was called in question in W.P. No. 17015 of 1989 before the High Court ofAndhra Pradesh, during the pendency of which the father of the appellant wasreported dead and appellant substituted. That petition was allowed by orderdated 19-7-1989 and the proceedingremanded. V. On remand the STA, AndhraPradesh having rejected the application in its meeting held on 16-10-1989 , when challenged inAppeal No. 8 of 2000 before the STAT, Hyderabad , was allowed by order dated 23-8-2002 and proceeding remitted for fresh consideration.The STA, Andhra Pradesh, in its meeting held on 7-2-2004 granted the stagecarriage permit in the existing vacancy at Sl. No. 35 in Part B of Appendix tothe inter-State agreement under the notification dated 28-8-1975 and issuedpermit bearing No. PSP/1/STA/04 valid from 24-3-2004 to 23-3-2009 . VI. Appellant's request forcountersignature when acceded by the STA, Bangalore on 15-6-2004 , thoughchallenged in writ petition by one Gopalakrishna, was rejected on the ground ofavailability of alternative remedy, where afterwards, a revision petitionthough filed was not pressed. VI. Appellant's request forcountersignature when acceded by the STA, Bangalore on 15-6-2004 , thoughchallenged in writ petition by one Gopalakrishna, was rejected on the ground ofavailability of alternative remedy, where afterwards, a revision petitionthough filed was not pressed. W.P. No. 31958 of 2004 filed by the 2ndrespondent-KSRTC was allowed by order dated 30-8-2004 and proceeding remitted. On remand, the STA, Bangalore by order dated 15-9-2004 granted countersignature and issued an endorsement on 1-12-2004 . The order and endorsement when calledin question by KSRTC and the 3rd respondent, numbered as R.P. Nos. 537 and 659of 2004, respectively, the STAT, Karnataka by common order dated 12-1-2005 allowed the petitions andset aside the countersignature. VII .That common order when called in question by the appellant in W.P. No. 3910 of2005, was confirmed by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 10-10-2014impugned herein, dismissing the petition. 2-A. Although learned Senior Counsel for the appellant makes reference to severalreported opinions of the Apex Court and that of this Court in relation to the provisions of the M.V. Act, sufficeit to notice relevant provisions and decisions as are applicable to the lisbrought before Court. 3. Chapter IV-A in the M.V. Actbeing special in relation to State Transport Undertaking, the non obstanteclause in Section 68-B makes the chapter, rules and orders made thereinapplicable notwithstanding anything inconsistent in Chapter IV or any other lawfor the time being in force or any other instrument having effect by virtue ofany such law. Section 68-C provides for preparation and publication in the OfficialGazette, as the State Government may direct, of Scheme of Road Transportservice of a State Transport undertaking whether to the exclusion, complete orpartial, of other persons or otherwise, giving particulars of the nature ofservice proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered.Section 68-D provides for objections to the Scheme and the publication of anapproved scheme. Section 68-E provides for cancellation or modification of thescheme. Section 68-F provides for issue of permits to the State Transportundertakings. 4. Section 68-FF restricts thegrant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route whereunderpermits are not to be granted except in accordance with the provisions of theScheme. Section 68-E provides for cancellation or modification of thescheme. Section 68-F provides for issue of permits to the State Transportundertakings. 4. Section 68-FF restricts thegrant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route whereunderpermits are not to be granted except in accordance with the provisions of theScheme. The proviso therein states that where no application for permit is madeby the State Transport undertaking, in respect of any notified area or notifiedroute in pursuance of an approved scheme, the Authorities may grant temporarypermits to any person in respect of such notified area or route with acondition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permitto the State Transport undertaking in respect of that area or route. 5. The Government of Mysoreexercising jurisdiction under Section 63- D( 3) of theM.V. Act issued a notification dated 10-1-1968 and published the approved scheme, the schedule to which reads thus: SCHEDULE (a) x x x x x x x x (b) x x x x x x x x (c) x x x x x x x x (d) Whether the services are to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking to the exclusion, complete or partial or other persons or otherwise. The State Transport Undertaking will operate service on all the routes to the complete exclusion of other persons except that : (a) That existing permit holders on the routes, may continue to operate such routes, subject to the condition that their permit shall be rendered ineffective for the overlapping portion of the notified routes; and (b) x x x x x (e) to (s) x x x x x x x x x x 6. The State Government exercisingjurisdiction under Section 68-E of the M.V. Act issued a notification dated10-1-1980 and published the modification of the approved Scheme in thenotification dated 10-1-1968 of the State Transport Undertaking of KolarSector, the Schedule to which runs thus: SCHEDULE (d) Whether the services are to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking to the complete exclusion or partial or other persons or otherwise. The State Transport Undertaking will operate the services on all the routes to the complete exclusion of other persons except the following : a. Operation of services on inter-State routes by the State Road Transport Corporation of other Transport Corporation Act, 1958 (Central Act No. 64 of 1950) or registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 1 of 1956); b. That the existing operators whose permits (routes) overlap the road portion from Basepalli to Chelur and Pathapalaya Cross (M.S. 6/84 to 22) only may continue to operate such routes subject to the condition that their permit be rendered ineffective for this overlapping portion only: c. The operation of services by the permit holders who have already been granted permits by the Transport Authorities on the date of publication of the modified scheme on inter-State agreement entered into by the Government of any other State provided that the operator on each route shall not be entitled to pickup and set down passengers in such portion of the routes which overlaps on any portions of the notification. 7. The Government of Karnatakahaving noticed that no exemption is provided in the notification dated10-1-1980 for operation of private services by private operators who have beengranted permits by Transport Authorities to ply their services on,inter-District and intra-Regional routes, proposed to extend the said benefitto such private operators over routes lying in District of Kolar overlappingthe notified routes of Kolar approved scheme as on 31-7-1999, exercisedjurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (Central Act No. 59 of 1989) the Government of Karnataka modified theapproved scheme dated 10-1-1968 and dated 10-1-1980 by notification dated7-11-2003, the relevant portion of which reads thus: "(d) In the case of permitholders to whom permits are already granted and issued by Transport Authoritiesafter modification of the scheme dated 10-1-1980 on Inter-State, Inter-Districtand Intra-Districts routes overlapping the road section of the notified routeslying in the Scheme of Kolar as on 31-7-1999 and also on the date of the DraftNotification 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 pickupor set down passengers in such portion of the notified route lying in theScheme of Kolar". 8. Chapter IV relates to controlof transport vehicles. 8. Chapter IV relates to controlof transport vehicles. Section 42(1) states that no owner of a transportvehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle in any public place whetheror not such vehicle is actually carrying any passenger or goods save inaccordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by aregional of STA or the Commissioner authorizing the use of the vehicle in thatplace in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. 9. Section 57 provides forprocedure in applying for and granting contract carriage permit or privatecarrier permits. Sub-section (2) states that an application for stage carriagepermit shall be made not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desiredthat permit shall take effect. Sub-section (8) provides for an application tovary the conditions of any permit other than a temporary permit by theinclusion of a new route or routes, in case of stage carriage permit byincreasing the number of trips above the specified maximum, etc. Section63(3-A) stipulates that every proposal to enter into an agreement between theStates, to fix the number of permits proposed to be granted or countersigned inrespect of each route or area to be published by each of the State Governmentin the Official Gazette and call for representations in that regard.Sub-section (3-B) states that every agreement arrived at between States shallinsofar as it relates to grant of countersignature of permits, be published inthe Official Gazette by each of the State concerned and the respectiveAuthorities shall give effect to it. 10. The State of Karnatakapublished the inter-State agreement dated 28-8-1975 entered into with theGovernment of Andhra Pradesh, in the Official Gazette on 1-9-1975 whereunder,Item Nos. 35 and 71 in Part B and Part A of the Appendix, respectively, inrelation to the route Tirupati to Bangalore reads thus: S. No. Route Route length in kms. No. of permits buses No. of Round trips No. of Daily Services in Kms. Andhra Pradesh Karnataka Total Min. Max Min. Max. Andhra Pradesh Karnataka Total Mix. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) 35. Thirupathi to Bangalore via Peleru Kalkiri, Chintamani, Kaiwara Cross, H. Cross, Vijayapura, Devahanahalli, Yelahanka, Hebbala 138.4 132.4 273.6 1 2 1 2 276.8 553.6 270.4 547.2 540.8 1094 71. Max Min. Max. Andhra Pradesh Karnataka Total Mix. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) 35. Thirupathi to Bangalore via Peleru Kalkiri, Chintamani, Kaiwara Cross, H. Cross, Vijayapura, Devahanahalli, Yelahanka, Hebbala 138.4 132.4 273.6 1 2 1 2 276.8 553.6 270.4 547.2 540.8 1094 71. Tirupati to Bangalore ( via ) Chandragiri, Naidragunta, Pakala, Kallur, Peler, Chintaparthi, Voyalpadu, Madanapalli, Royalpad, Tadigal Cross, H. Cross, Vijayapura, Devanahalli and Yelahanka 141.6 135.2 276.4 1 1 1 1 283.2 283.2 270.3 553.6 270.4 553.6 11. In T.N. Raghunatha Reddy v.Mysore State Transport Authority AIR 1971 SC 1662 : (1970) 1 SCC 541 : 1970 SCC(Cri.) 232, the Apex Court having regard to the effect of agreements vis-à-visthe provisions of Chapter IV-A of the MV Act, observed thus: "15. Regarding the third point, we were unable to appreciate how an inter-State agreementoverrides the provisions of Chapter IV-A. The inter-State agreement is not lawand to hold that an inter-State agreement overrides Chapter IV-A would be tocompletely disregard the provisions of Section68-B of the Act which providesthat "the provisions of this Chapter and the rules and orders madethereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewithcontained in Chapter IV of this Act or in any other law for the time being inforce or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law". Inthis connection reference was made to Articles 162 and 298 of the Constitutionof India. But we were unable to appreciate what relevance these articles haveto the point at issue. Assuming that a State has power to enter into agreementwith another State in exercise of its executive powers under Article 162, andunder Article 298 it can carry on trade or business, we are unable to see whatlight these facts throw on the question before us". 12. In the light of the aforesaidstatutory provisions, the scheme and its modification, it is needless to statethat the non obstante clause in Section 68-B, coupled with Section68-FFimposing a restriction in the grant of permit in respect of notified route,subject to the provisions of the scheme, the provisions of Chapter IV relating,more appropriately Section 68(3-A) and 68(3-B) in the matter of the inter-Stateagreement are inapplicable. 13. 13. In M/s. Adarsh Travels BusService and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others AIR 1986 SC 319 : (1985) 4 SCC 557 , the Apex Court at paragraph 6 observed thus: "A careful and diligentperusal of Sections 68-C, 68-D(3) and 68-FF in the light of the definition ofthe expression 'route', in Section 2(28-A) appears to make it manifestly clearthat once a scheme is published under Section68-D in relation to any area orroute or portion thereof, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial ofother persons or otherwise, no person other than the State Transportundertaking may operate on the notified area or notified route except asprovided in the scheme itself. A necessary consequence of these provisions isthat no private operator can operate his vehicle on any part or portion of anotified area or notified route unless authorised so to do by the terms of thescheme itself. He may not operate on any part or portion of the notified routeor area on the mere ground that the permit as originally granted to him coveredthe notified route or area...... ". Further the Apex Court having regard to the pernicious practicefollowed by Transport Authorities compelled the following observation: "6. ..... on the other handit 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 the notified routes are more often than not misutilised since it isnext nigh impossible to keep a proper check at every point of the route. It isalso well-known that often times permits for plying state carriages from apoint a short distance beyond one terminus to a point a shorter distance beyondanother terminus of a notified route have been applied for and granted subjectto the so-called 'corridor restrictions' which are but mere ruses or traps toobtain permits and to frustrate the scheme. If indeed there is any need forprotecting the travelling public from inconvenience as suggested by the learnedCounsel we have no doubt that the State Transport undertaking and theGovernment will make a sufficient provision in the scheme itself to avoidinconvenience being caused to travelling public". 14. The approved Scheme and itstwo modifications renders ineffective all stage carriage permits operating onthe routes under the said Scheme on the date of the notification, insofar asthey relate to overlapping portion of the notified routes. 14. The approved Scheme and itstwo modifications renders ineffective all stage carriage permits operating onthe routes under the said Scheme on the date of the notification, insofar asthey relate to overlapping portion of the notified routes. It is in thiscontext that the permit holders operating services on such routes are termed as'saved operators'. If regard is had to the aforesaid scheme, provisions of thestatute and observations of the Apex Court, it is obvious that a 'savedoperator' exempt from the operation of the scheme is entitled to continue tooperate services with the existing number of trips in terms of the stagecarriage permit, from the date when the scheme was published. 15. In the facts noticed supra,appellant's father was operating stage carriage service of one round trip onroute Tirupati to Bangalore under stage carriage Permit No. 33/65, as on thedate of the approved Scheme under the first notification dated 10-1-1968, beinga 'saved operator' was entitled to continue to operate one round trip on thesaid route, however, with corridor restriction not to pickup or set down passengerson the notified route. 16. The application dated21-6-1983 filed by the appellant's father for a fresh grant of permit forsecond round trip for the route Tirupati to Bangalore in view of theInter-State agreement dated 28-8-1975, providing for a maximum of two permitsand two round trips, when rejected was subject-matter of proceedings before theTransport Authorities of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as well as, the HighCourt of Andhra Pradesh, leading to the STA, Hyderabad making a fresh grant ofstage carriage permit on 7-2-2004 for one more round trip from Tirupati toBangalore. In terms of the scheme dated 10-1-1968 duly modified on 11-1-1980and 7-11-2003, since the appellant's father being a 'saved operator' entitledto continue to operate the service on the route Tirupati to Bangalore for oneround trip, was disentitled to a fresh grant of permit on 7-2-2004 for anotherround trip, and as a necessary consequence was not entitled to acountersignature of the permit by the STA, Bangalore. 17. In the facts andcircumstances, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that since Sl. 17. In the facts andcircumstances, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that since Sl. No.35 in Part B of the Appendix to the agreement dated 1-9-1975 provides for twobuses and two round trips as the maximum and therefore, STA, Hyderabad granteda fresh stage carriage permit with one round trip, being a 'saved operator' onthe notified route in the 'Kolar Pocket Scheme' was justifiably rejected bothby the STAT, Karnataka and the learned Single Judge. 18. A faint submission that thesecond round trip between Tirupati and Bangalore was claimed by the appellant by way of increasing the number of round trips tothe stage carriage Permit No. 33/65 is noticed only to be rejected. To thequery to furnish a copy of the application dated 21-6-1983 of T.N. RamalingaReddy to ascertain as to whether it was for grant of fresh permit for one roundtrip from Tirupati to Bangalore or to increase the number of round trips to thestage carriage Permit No. 33/65, learned Senior Counsel was unable to place thesame on record. The fallacy in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel isapparently noticeable from the following: (a) The order dated 7-2-2004 ofthe STA, Hyderabad in R. No. 10265/B1 granting fresh stage carriage permit withone round trip from Tirupati to Bangalore and not as a second round trip to thestage carriage permit No. 33/65 by way of increase in the number of trips,observed thus: "Since the applicant being anexisting operator on this route, he is entitled for grant of second permit asper the provision available in the agreement. Hence, the applicant is grantedpermit on the route Tirupati to Bangalore in existing vacancy". (b) The statement of objectionsfiled by the respondents, arraigned as 2nd respondent in R.P. No. 537 of 2004,at paragraph 4 states thus: "4. .... there was one morevacancy for one bus and one round trip for which the 2nd respondent have filedan application for the grant of the permit. The STA granted the permit in thevacancy found in Sl. No. 35 of Appendix-B and in the proceedings R. No.10265/D1, dated 7-2-2004 . Inpursuance of the said grant to the respondent has been issued with permit No.1/STA/04 valid upto 23-3-2009 ,covered by Vehicle No. AP 03/W-468 to operate on the route referred toabove". The learned Single Judge, in ourconsidered opinion, was fully justified in rejecting the writ petition by theorder impugned. Appeals devoid of merit, rejected.