JUDGMENT Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—Petitioner, a Government company duly incorporated on 23 June 2010, under the Companies Act, 1956, inter alia, to establish and maintain line of passenger coaches, metro and other vehicles generally to transport passengers and to deal with any such coaches and buses. Fifty percent share is held by the Central Government and the remain fifty percent by the State Government. The company was incorporated in furtherance of the mission to provide urban transport within Meerut city under the Jawahar Lal Nehru Urban Renewal Scheme (JNNURM). The Board of Directors constitute the district level officials; the Divisional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, is the ex-officio chairman. The Company is a State Transport Undertaking within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (Act 1988). 2. Petitioner is assailing the order dated 21 March 2016 passed by the revisional authority/State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow, whereby, the revision of the firth respondent-private transport operators has been allowed, thereby, setting aside the orders dated 19 September 2014 and 22 July 2015 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut (RTA Meerut), refusing to renew the permits of private transporters for a period of five years. 3. The facts leading to the present petition, briefly is, that the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) was created on 1 June 1972 under Section 3 of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (Act 1950) for providing efficient, adequate, economical and coordinated transport services, which succeeded the assets and liabilities of the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways being a department of the State Government since 1947. 4. The State Government published a scheme on 12 February 1951 under Act 1950, providing for running and operation of the Road Transport Services of the State Government to the exclusion of the private operators. The routes covered under the scheme include the following: (1) Meerut - Garh - Moradabad (2) Meerut - Ghaziabad - Delhi (3) Delhi Dehradun, etc, routes The nationalized routes passed through Meerut city overlapping the following city routes within Meerut city: (1) Medical College to Begumpul Crossing route is a part of Meerut - Garh - Moradabad notified route. (2) Begumpul to Partapur route is part of Meerut - Ghaziabad - Delhi, notified route. (3) Other Meerut city routes are a part of Delhi - Dehradun, notified route. 5. (2) Begumpul to Partapur route is part of Meerut - Ghaziabad - Delhi, notified route. (3) Other Meerut city routes are a part of Delhi - Dehradun, notified route. 5. Act 1950, was declared ultra vires of Article 19(1)(g) and 31(ii) of the Constitution of India by the Supreme Court in Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P., 1954 AIR 728. Consequently, U.P. Road Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955, was enacted with retrospective effect to save the notifications issued under the earlier act i.e. Act, 1950. Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 was repealed by the subsequently enacted Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, however, the schemes framed under the repealed Act were saved in view of Section 217(2) of Act 1988. 6. Chapter V of the Act 1988, relates to grant of permits on non-notified routes, whereas, Chapter VI relates to State Transport Undertakings; preparation and publication of schemes to provide transport services partially and exclusively by the State Transport Undertakings on notified routes. In view of Section 98 of Act 1988, Chapter VI overrides the provisions of Chapter V. Further, in view of the provisions contained in Section 71(3)(d) and Section 74(3)(b) of the Act, 1988, the State Transport Undertaking has a preferential right for plying vehicles even on non-notified routes. The State Transport Undertaking is thus, plying its vehicles on notified routes, pursuant to the scheme dated 12 February 1951, to the exclusion of private operators, which passes through the municipal limits of Meerut City. 7. The State Government vide another notification of the same date i.e. 12 February 1951, framed a scheme for nationalization of city bus in various cities, noted therein, for exclusive operation of the vehicles of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways. 8. The notification, however, did not include Meerut city, therefore, the State Government vide notification dated 5 August 1994 included the city of Meerut. Pursuant thereof, the first respondent was granted permit for plying vehicles on Meerut city route from Medical College to City Station via Hapur Stand, Begum Bridge. 9. The notification dated 5 August 1994, was quashed partially in Abdul Wahid Kurahsi v. State of U.P., Writ Petition (M/B) No. 1338 of 1995, by this Court vide judgment and order dated 27 January 2009. The notification was quashed to the extent it related to Meerut city. 9. The notification dated 5 August 1994, was quashed partially in Abdul Wahid Kurahsi v. State of U.P., Writ Petition (M/B) No. 1338 of 1995, by this Court vide judgment and order dated 27 January 2009. The notification was quashed to the extent it related to Meerut city. The judgment was subjected to challenge before the Supreme Court; an order of status quo was passed, however, the special leave petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 18 January 2012 and the status quo order was vacated. Thereafter, it appears that the Meerut - Sardhana Passenger Transport Association, an association of private operators, moved a representation on 1 February 2012 before the RTA, Meerut. Petitioner also filed a representation on 18 May 2012 before the RTA Meerut for stopping the vehicles of private operators and cancelling their permits on Meerut city bus routes. The RTA Meerut vide order dated 22 July 2015 declined to renew the permits of private operator, accordingly, permits were cancelled. In the meanwhile, the petitioner-company acquired buses to be operated on the Meerut city routes, consequently, were granted more than 50 permits by the RTA Meerut on 22 July 2015 on the following routes: (1) Machara to Begum Bridge (2) Radha Govind College to Siwaya (3) Medical College to City Station (4) Medical College to Cantt., Station (5) Behsali Bus Station to Pathauli (6) Rajpura to Behsali Bus Station (7) Ganga Sagar to Partapur (8) Behsali Bus Station to Khajuri 10. Aggrieved, by the order of RTA Meerut, the private operators including the first respondent, filed revision in terms of Section 90 of Act 1988, without impleading the petitioner company. By the impugned order, the revisional authority allowed the revision. RTA Meerut had put in appearance before the revisional authority taking a categorical stand that the permits granted to the private operators were overlapping notified routes covered by scheme dated 12 February 1951, hence, permits could not be granted to the private operators in contravention to the scheme. 11. By the impugned order, the revisional authority allowed the revision. RTA Meerut had put in appearance before the revisional authority taking a categorical stand that the permits granted to the private operators were overlapping notified routes covered by scheme dated 12 February 1951, hence, permits could not be granted to the private operators in contravention to the scheme. 11. Sri Sameer Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit: (i) the permits of private respondents was cancelled on an application moved by the petitioner, therefore, was a necessary party; (ii) admittedly, the permits granted to the private transporters is on notified route passing through Meerut city; (iii) the finding recorded by the revisional authority that the State Transporter had not objected to the grant of permits to private operators is per se, perverse, as the permits were cancelled on the application of the State Transporters; (iv) the private transporters have been granted permits only on notified routes which directly affects the petitioner-State Transport Undertakings, therefore, a necessary party; (v) upon notification dated 5 August 1994, including Meerut city in the scheme of Meerut city Bus Service being set aside, private operators could not have been granted permits, therefore, RTA Meerut had rightly cancelled their permits under Section 103(2)(b) of Act 1988 (vi) admittedly, the permits to private operators were granted only on routes which overlap the notified routes passing through Meerut city which is impermissible. 12. In rebuttal, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private transporters would contend: (i) petitioner would have no locus as their permit was not assailed before the revisioanl authority; (ii) the petitioners are rival in trade, therefore, cannot prohibit the private operators from operating within Meerut city; (iii) admittedly, Meerut city is a non-notified area, therefore, the private transporters have a right to obtain permits alongwith State Transport Undertakings; (iv) the routes notified pass through Meerut city being interstate routes, therefore, would have no bearing on the permits granted to the private transporters. 13. Rival submissions fall for consideration. 14. The facts, inter se, parties are not in dispute. It is not being disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the permits of the private operators was cancelled upon an application made by the petitioner company which is a State Transport Undertaking within the meaning of Act 1988. 13. Rival submissions fall for consideration. 14. The facts, inter se, parties are not in dispute. It is not being disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the permits of the private operators was cancelled upon an application made by the petitioner company which is a State Transport Undertaking within the meaning of Act 1988. It is also not disputed that the Meerut city is not a notified area, however, certain routes, which is depicted in the sketch map, would indicate that the notified routes pass through city of Meerut, therefore, the question that would arise is as to whether, the private operators can be granted permit to ply their vehicles on the notified routes passing through Meerut City which would overlap routes duly notified. It is also not in dispute that the permits granted to the petitioner company is under Chapter V which pertains to non-notified route or area, and not under Chapter VI which pertains to notified route/area to the exclusion of the private operators. The permits granted to the private respondents are admittedly only on the notified routes passing through Meerut city. 15. On analyzing the provisions contained in Chapter VI of Act 1988 it is found that formulation of a scheme is to be prepared and published by the State Transport Undertakings in respect of the services to be provided in any area or route to be covered. The underlying object for such formulation of scheme for its preparation and publication must be for providing an efficient, adequate, economic and properly coordinated route transport service with the paramount consideration of public interest and such scheme should be prepared and published. Once the approved scheme comes into effect under the Act 1988, the State Transport Undertakings can be issued with the required permits. Further, it creates a restriction on grant of permits in respect of notified area and notified routes. On a close reading of the provisions discloses that where an approved scheme as stipulated under the Act 1988, in respect of an area or route is published, then, it prohibits grant of any permit except in accordance with the provisions of this scheme. On a close reading of the provisions discloses that where an approved scheme as stipulated under the Act 1988, in respect of an area or route is published, then, it prohibits grant of any permit except in accordance with the provisions of this scheme. Therefore, it follows that once the approved scheme comes into play, then, there will not be any scope for grant of any permit in that area or route covered by the scheme, except what is specifically framed and provided under that scheme itself. The approved scheme will exclude the operation of other stage carriage services on the route/area covered by the scheme, except those whose names are mentioned in the scheme to the extent to which such extension is allowed. 16. It can be stated that where, under the scheme while State Transport Undertakings alone and exclusively permitted to operate his service in any particular area or route or even while providing such exclusive operation by the State Transport Undertakings, even in respect of protected operation under the scheme the existing operator, as on date of the approved scheme, he will have to restrict his operation to the extent to which he was permitted as on date and the manner in which such operation was permitted and not beyond, thus, no private operator can operate his vehicle on any part or portion of a notified area or notified route unless authorized so to do by the term of the scheme itself. He may not operate on any part or portion of the notified area or route on the mere ground that the permit as originally granted to him covered the notified route or area. 17. In G.T. Venkataswamy Reddi v. State Transport Authority and others, 2016(8) SCC 402 , the issue before the Constitution Bench was whether on publication of an approved scheme, the number of trips of vehicles of the existing operators can be increased, both by number of trips and vehicles, by granting variation of permit even of the existing operators or allowed to carry their business on the date of publication of the scheme. In para 51.7 of the judgment it was held that either a grant of new permit or variation of existing permit of private operator cannot be ordered in respect of area or route covered by an approved scheme. 18. In para 51.7 of the judgment it was held that either a grant of new permit or variation of existing permit of private operator cannot be ordered in respect of area or route covered by an approved scheme. 18. The Constitution Bench in Adarsh Bus Travels Service v. State of U.P. and others, 1985 LawSuit (SC) 334, wherein the question posed for consideration was, where a route is nationalized, whether a private operator with a permit to ply stage carriage over another route but which has common overlapping sector with the nationalized route can ply his vehicle over that part of the overlapping common sector, if he does not pick up or drop the passengers on the overlapping part of the route. The Constitution Bench while dealing with the said question held that in the light of the expression “route” appears to make it manifestly clear that once a scheme has been published in relation to any area or route or portion thereof, to the exclusion, complete or partial of other persons or otherwise, no person other than State Transport Undertakings may operate on the notified area or route except as provided in the scheme itself. The Court held: “A careful and diligent perusal of Sections 68-C, 68- D(3) and 68-FF in the light of the definition of the expression “route” in Section 2(28A) 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 vehicles on any part or portion of a notified area or notified route unless authorised 80 to do by the terms of 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 his covered the notified route or area. 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 his covered the notified route or area. [672 C-E] It is 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 that not mis-utilised since it is need to nigh impossible to keep a proper check at every point of the route. Often times, permits for plying stage carriage from a point a short distance beyond one terminus to a point at 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, the State Transport Undertaking and the Government will ha e to make sufficient provision in the scheme itself to avoid inconvenience being caused to the travelling public.” 19. The necessary consequence of the provisions of Act 1988 is that no private operator can operate his vehicle on any part or portion of the notified area or route unless authorized to do so by the terms of scheme itself. 20. The Constitution Bench in Adarsh case ultimately answered the question by holding that overlapping even on a small distance on a notified route is not permissible. 21. The permits granted to the private operators would clearly reflect that they have been granted permits on the notified routes passing through Meerut city, rather they had applied for permits only on the notified routes, which, in my opinion, would be in teeth of the law laid down in Adarsh case duly affirmed by the subsequent Constitution Bench in G.T. Venkataswamy. 22. The Supreme Court in B.A. Linga Reddi and others v. Karnataka State Transport Authority and others, 2014(2) LAWS(SC) 68, relying upon Adarsh case held, that it is not of significance whether area of overlapping is small or larger area or whether it falls within a local limits of a town or a village, the private operators cannot be permitted to operate on notified routes. The relevant issue, before the revisional authority, therefore, was, whether permits could have been granted to the private operators on notified routes, even though falling within the city of Meerut, should have been gone into. 23. It is needless to say that once it is a nationalized route, there is prohibition to permit any private vehicle to ply except by amending the scheme. It is the mandate of the law and cannot be ignored. (Refer: U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Omaditya Verma, (2005) 4 SCC 424 , Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. Ashrafulla Khan, 2002 LawSuit (SC) 39) 24. The plea of locus of the petitioner being raised by the respondents do not have much ground to stand upon for the simple reason that upon notification of 1994 being set aside by this Court, the private operators had no right thereafter, to ply their vehicles on the notified routes passing through the city, presently, it is the State Transport Undertaking that is plying their vehicles within the city and on the notified routes to the exclusion of private operators. Though, Meerut city is not a notified area, but even otherwise, whether the private operators have a right to ply on notified routes passing through the city is a question which ought to have been considered by the revisional authority after putting the State Transport Undertakings to notice as they were the affected party, therefore, the plea that the petitioner or the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) would have no locus, stands rejected. 25. The Division Bench in Surendra Rao v. Regional Transport Authority Gorakhpur, 1992 AIR 211, held that order granting permits may affect the working of the route, the existing operator has locus standi, being aggrieved person, to file a revision under Section 90 before the Tribunal. (Refer : Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Regional Transport Authority, 1999 (1) ACC 170 and Sai Chalchitra v. Commissioner, Meerut Mandal and others, 2005 (3) SCC 683 ). 26. As regard the plea of being rival in trade i.e. both the State Transport Undertakings and the private operators can operate within the city of Meerut is not issue in the facts of the present case. 26. As regard the plea of being rival in trade i.e. both the State Transport Undertakings and the private operators can operate within the city of Meerut is not issue in the facts of the present case. The private operators have been granted permits on notified routes alone passing through Meerut city which, admittedly, is to the exclusion of private operators, therefore, the revisional authority committed an error in not considering the plea of the petitioner in light of the Constitution Bench decisions referred herein above. Further, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the private operators had not applied for permits on other routes of Meerut city but only for the notified routes. 27. Having due regard to the law and reasons stated herein above, I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that they were necessary and property party to the lis before the revisional authority, therefore, should have been heard before the impugned order was passed. 28. Accordingly, the impugned order 31 March 2016 passed by the third respondent, in Revision No. 215 of 2015 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the third respondent, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow to decide afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, thereafter, pass appropriate order. 29. It is made clear that the observations made in the order, both on law and facts, is upon rival contentions, therefore, the revisional authority shall decide on merit without being influenced by the observations. 30. Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed. No cost.