ORDER : The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: (i) “Quash the order passed by 1st respondent in Sub.Nos.2, 3, 4, 5/1112 dated 24.02.2012 in rejecting 4 applications on the routes Lakshmeshwar to Hanagal and back and Mangalore to Laxmeshwar, Laxmeshwar to Hanagal and back and Mangalore to Lakshmeshwar and back vide Annexure-E. (ii) Quash the orders passed by tribunal in Appeal No.378 to 381/2012 dated 28.01.2013 dismissing the appeals vide Annexure-K. (iii) Allow the writ petitions and grant the permits as prayed for in the applications in view of the various judgments referred by the petitioners vide Annexure-A, B, C and D. (iv) Direct the 2nd respondent to issue the permits on the routes specified in the applications within 60 days from the date of the order of this Hon’ble Court.” 2. The petitioner is operating stage carriage services in terms of the permits granted to it by the Regional Transport Authority of Shimoga, Udupi, Karwar, Dharwar and Mangalore Districts under the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the permits are in operation in the best interest of travelling public. The petitioner filed four applications for grant of inter district stage carriage permits passing through five districts i.e., Gadag, Haveri, Shimoga, Udupi and Mangalore on the route Laxmeshwar to Hanagal and back, Laxmeshwar to Mangalore and back. The said applications were considered by the Respondent No.1 in its Meeting held on 24.2.2012 in Sub. Nos.2, 3, 4 & 5 of 2011-12. After hearing the petitioner as well as the Respondent No.3, the Respondent No.1 rejected the applications on the ground that the routes proposed by the petitioner falls within the area Scheme of old Dharwar District. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the matter dismissed the appeals on the ground that the routes proposed by the petitioner violates the Dharwar Scheme. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Dharwar Scheme is a route Scheme which is similar to Anekal Scheme. The said Anekal Scheme was taken up by one of the operator to the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘H.C. NARAYANAPPA vs. STATE OF MYSORE’ reported in AIR 1960 SC 107, wherein, it is held that said Anekal Scheme is only in respect of 14 routes and in relation to the area described in Column No.1. The said Anekal Scheme was taken up by one of the operator to the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘H.C. NARAYANAPPA vs. STATE OF MYSORE’ reported in AIR 1960 SC 107, wherein, it is held that said Anekal Scheme is only in respect of 14 routes and in relation to the area described in Column No.1. Hence, the Dharwar Scheme is also in respect of only particular routes i.e., routes mentioned from 1 to 170. However, the Tribunal without considering the said aspect of the matter proceeded to dismiss the appeal which is contrary to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H.C. NARAYANAPPA [supra]. 4. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Tribunal in SMT. SUJATHA.V.SHETTY AND OTHERS vs. ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, DK, MANGALORE AND OTHERS in Appeal Nos.253, 342 of 1992 and connected matters, to point out that it was the specific stance of the KSRTC in as much as the Dharwar scheme, a route scheme and the same was affirmed by the Tribunal. It was further contended that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration, the route proposed by the petitioner do not traverse on any of the routes notified in the Notification dated 11.7.1959 in respect of Sl.Nos.1 to 170 routes. The approach of the Tribunal in not appreciating the Judgments relied upon by the petitioner in a right perspective caused miscarriage of justice. According to the learned Counsel, Dharwar Scheme is not an area Scheme, it is only a route Scheme. The Tribunal failed to examine the proposed routes of the petitioner whether traverses the notified routes or not. The Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction in the right perspective. The Tribunal misconstrued the Notification and dismissed the appeals. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [‘Act’, for short] contemplates restriction on grant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route. In terms of the said section, where a 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. In terms of the said section, where a 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. The Notification of the Dharwar Scheme dated 11.7.1959 published in the Mysore Gazette on 16.7.1959 would disclose the area in relation to which the Scheme is approved i.e., Dharwar and North Kanara Districts and part of Belgaum and Bijapur Districts whereas the Notification dated 15.4.1968 published in the Mysore Gazette on 23.4.1959 in relation to Anekal Scheme shows the area in relation to which the Scheme is approved as part of Bangalore District via Bangalore Scheme approved [Bangalore North, Bangalore South, Anekal and Hospet Taluks]. A bare reading of these two Notifications would make it clear that the Dharwar Scheme is an area Scheme as well as the route Scheme. The area Scheme is relating to Dharwar and North Canara Districts, the route Scheme is with respect to Belgaum and Bijapur Districts. The notification issued for the Anekal Scheme is to the route Scheme. It is for part of Bangalore District. This makes the difference between the Anekal Scheme and Dharwar Scheme. 6. The learned Counsel also distinguishes the Judgment of H.C. NARAYANAPPA [supra]. Placing reliance on ADARSH TRAVELS’ case [supra], the learned Counsel contended that once the Scheme is published under section 68D of the Act in relation to any area or route or portion thereof, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial or other person or otherwise no persons other than the State Transport Undertaking may operate in the notified area or notified route. 7. It is beneficial to refer to the judgments relating to the Dharwar and Anekal Scheme. In the case of SMT. SUJATHA.V.SHETTY AND OTHERS (supra) before the Tribunal, it was held that Dharwad Scheme is a route Scheme. In writ petition No.14660-61/1998, the learned Single Judge while considering the notified route of Dharwar approved Scheme, in the context of the route Uppunda to Bhatkal whether is in the Dharwad notified Scheme or not held that there was no overlapping. SUJATHA.V.SHETTY AND OTHERS (supra) before the Tribunal, it was held that Dharwad Scheme is a route Scheme. In writ petition No.14660-61/1998, the learned Single Judge while considering the notified route of Dharwar approved Scheme, in the context of the route Uppunda to Bhatkal whether is in the Dharwad notified Scheme or not held that there was no overlapping. The said judgment was challenged in writ appeal No.42354-236/1998 by the KSRTC wherein it is observed that Bhatkal to Uppunda route is a notified route; once the route is notified, it is notified according to the Scheme for the operation of the KSRTC to the exclusion of all others. Thus, on the notified Scheme, for the routes under the Scheme, no permit can be granted to any other except KSRTC. In the case of H.C. NARAYANAPPA [supra], it is observed thus: 4. Re. 1: In column 1 of the Scheme " part of Bangalore District, viz,, Bangalore North, Bangalore South, Anekal and Hosakote Taluks " is set out as the area in relation to which the Scheme is approved; and in column 3, "the routes (with their starting points, termini, intermediate stations and route length) in which the State transport undertaking will introduce its services to the exclusion of private operators "are those set out in statement 1 appended to the Scheme. Statement 1 sets out the description of fourteen routes with their intermediate points, route length, number of buses to be operated and the maximum number of trips to be performed on each route. By column 4 "the number of existing stage carriages on each route with the number of trips and the names of their operators "are described" as in statement 2 appended". Statement 2 sets out the names and places of business of fiftysix operators together with the routes operated and the numbers of the stage carriages and trips made by those operators. In the Anekal area, there are thirtyone routes, which are served by stage carriages operated by private operators, and by the approval of the Scheme, only fourteen of those routes are covered by the Scheme' 5. In the Anekal area, there are thirtyone routes, which are served by stage carriages operated by private operators, and by the approval of the Scheme, only fourteen of those routes are covered by the Scheme' 5. Section 68C, in so far as it is material, provides that a State transport undertaking, if it is of opinion that it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run and operated by itself, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise, it may prepare a Scheme giving particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed. Section 68D(1) provides for inviting objections by persons affected by the Scheme. Sub-Section 2 of Section 68D authorises the State Government after considering the objections and giving an opportunity to the objectors to approve or modify the Scheme; and by subs. 3, the Scheme as approved or modified and published by the State Government in the official gazette shall "become final and shall be called the approved Scheme and the area or route to which it relates shall be called the notified area or notified route. "Counsel for the petitioners contended that exercising powers under Section 68C, the State transport undertaking may prepare a Scheme in respect of an area or a number of routes in that area, but not a Scheme for an area which is to apply to some only and not to, all routes on which public transport vehicles in the area operate. In this case, it is unnecessary to decide whether it is open to a State transport undertaking under a Scheme framed for a notified area to limit its application to some only of the routes, because on a true reading of the Scheme, it is amply clear that the Scheme was approved in relation to fourteen notified routes and not in relation to a notified area. The approved Scheme is in the form prescribed by the rules, and in the form prescribed, by column 1, the area in relation to which the Scheme is approved is required to be set out. The approved Scheme is in the form prescribed by the rules, and in the form prescribed, by column 1, the area in relation to which the Scheme is approved is required to be set out. But a Scheme under Section 68C must be one in relation to an area or any route or portion thereof wherein the transport service is to be undertaken by the State transport under taking to the exclusion, either complete or partial, of other operators. Column 1 of the approved Scheme undoubtedly describes the area in relation to which the Scheme is approved, but by the designation of the area, in the Scheme, an intention to exclude either wholly or partially the operators of stage carriages from that area is not evinced either expressly or by implication. By column 3, the Scheme expressly directs that the State transport undertaking will introduce its service to the exclusion of private operators on the specified routes. The Scheme must therefore be regarded as one for the fourteen notified routes and not in relation to the area described in column 1. 6. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that an order passed on October 22, 1959, by the 3rd respondent the Regional Transport Authority-rejecting applications for permits for one of the fourteen routes to an applicant, indicated that in the opinion of the third, respondent, the Scheme related to a notified area and not to notified routes. The order states that. "an approved Scheme for the exclusive operation in the notified area of Bangalore District" by the second respondent "has come into existence after the notification of the route Bangalore to Nallur, and the major, portion of the route applied for lie in the notified area and as such it was not desirable, to grant any permit to operators to pass through notified area in the intrastate route." The third respondent may have in considering the application assumed that the Scheme related to a notified area, but the true interpretation of the Scheme cannot be adjudged in the light of that assumption. The other document relied upon is a statement of objections filed by the second respondent on October 24, 1959, resisting the application for stage carriage permits to a private operator on the route Siddalaghatta-Bangalore via Nallur. In para. The other document relied upon is a statement of objections filed by the second respondent on October 24, 1959, resisting the application for stage carriage permits to a private operator on the route Siddalaghatta-Bangalore via Nallur. In para. 4 of the statement, it was submitted that "the existing notification dated October 15, 1959, came under the notified area of the department" of the second respondent "and that would overlap certain services of the department". But because in making his defence, the second respondent has referred to the Scheme as dealing with "the notified area", the Scheme will not necessarily be hold to be one in relation to the notified area.” 8. In the case of ADARSH TRAVELS [supra], it is held thus; “5. It is thus seen that while the provisions of Chapter IVA are devised to override the provisions of Chapter IV and it is expressly so enacted, the provisions of Chapter IVA are clear and complete regarding the manner and effect of the take over of the operation or road transport service by the State Transport Undertaking in relation to any area or route or portion thereof. While on the one hand, the paramount consideration is the public interest, the interest of the existing operators are sufficiently well-taken care of and such slight inconveniences to the travelling public as may be inevitable are sought to be reduced to a minimum xxxx xxxx.. 6. A careful and diligent perusal of sec.68C, sec.68D (3) and sec.68FF in the light of the definition of the expression 'route' in sec.2(28A) appears to make it manifestly clear that once a Scheme is published under sec.68D 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 of 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. He may not operate on any part of 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 on a stage carriage, to ply which on the route A to a person X has a permit, merely because a part of the route from to somewhere between the points A and 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 sec.68C, by the Government under sec.68D 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. me question is one of weighing in the balance the advantages conferred on the public by the nationalization of the route CD 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 next nigh impossible to keep a proper check at every point of the route. It is also well known that often times 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 socalled corridor restrictions, which are but more 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.” 9. 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.” 9. In the case of ‘NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HUBLI vs. DURGAMBA MOTORS, KUNDAPURA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 1999 KAR 2464, the learned Single Judge of this court held thus: “14. The validity of the Dharwar Scheme as modified by the notification dated 13-7-1992 was assailed in Writ Petition No. 26891 of 1992 and by an order dated 11th December, 1997 the modification of the Scheme as per notification dated 13th July, 1992 was upheld by this Court. The modified Dharwar Scheme by the notification dated 13-7-1992 reads as follows: "The number of existing stage carriages on each route with the number of trips and names of their operators. The State Transport Undertaking will operate the service on all routes to the complete exclusion of other persons except the existing number of services in regard to the portions of inter-district routes lying in the district of Shimoga: Provided that in the case of operation of services by permit holders who have already been granted permits by the Transport Authorities prior to the date of publication of the modified Scheme, on interregional routes overlapping the road section of the notified route lying in the districts of Dharwad and Uttara Kannada, the operators on such route shall not be entitled to pick up or set down passengers in such portions of the route which overlap on any portion of the notified route lying in the districts of Dharwad and Uttara Kannada". What is significant to note is by this amendment dated 13-7-1992, the existing permit holders on the inter-district routes were entitled to operate on the route overlapping portions of the notified route lying in the districts of Dharwar and North Canara without picking up or setting down passengers. Otherwise after the issuance of notification dated 13-7-1992 there is no jurisdiction conferred on the State Transport Authority or Road Transport Authority to entertain applications for grant of fresh permits to private operators on the notified route under the Dharwar Scheme. Otherwise after the issuance of notification dated 13-7-1992 there is no jurisdiction conferred on the State Transport Authority or Road Transport Authority to entertain applications for grant of fresh permits to private operators on the notified route under the Dharwar Scheme. This exception has been incorporated in the modified Dharwar Scheme to prevent hardship to those existing operators on the notified routes, who had been granted permits on the then perception of the scope of Dharwar Scheme, by reason of decisions rendered by this Court. It is significant to note that the amendment of the Dharwar Scheme as modified by the notification dated 13-7-1992 emphasises the scope of the Scheme, as extending beyond the area specified therein. The vital clauses (1) and (3) of the Dharwar Scheme and the subsequent amendment clearly emphasises the true nature of the Scheme, viz., that it is a partly area and partly route Scheme.” 10. This Judgment of the Single Judge was confirmed in Writ Appeal No.2396/1999 which reads thus: “The order under appeal has already been upheld by this Court in Writ Appeals Nos.4235-36/96 dated 7.4.99. Following the aforesaid judgment, writ appeals Nos.2481-82/99 were also dismissed on 7.4.99. Review petition filed by some of the appellants in the aforesaid writ appeals has also been dismissed. 2. Simply because the notice had been issued in this appeal, counsel for the appellant insisted that the appeal has arguable points and should be admitted and a fresh notice be issued. We do not subscribe to this view. Accepting of this appeal would lead to passing of contradictory and inconsistent orders which has to be avoided at any costs. Law prohibits the passing of contradictory and inconsistent orders as it leads to confusion and the authorities below would not know which order to follow.” 11. In the case of ‘T.V.NATARAJA AND OTHERS V/S. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS’, reported in 1994 (2) SCC 32 , it is held thus: “(3) In 1963, it is claimed that the State Transport Authorities of Karnataka and Madras, having regard to the interest of the travelling public, after investigating the necessity for grant of permits, granted stage carriages through the Anekal Pocket Scheme with the same restrictions as were imposed earlier and are known as 'corridor restrictions'. The grant of permit was objected to by the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation insofar as it overlapped notified routes. The grant of permit was objected to by the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation insofar as it overlapped notified routes. The dispute ultimately reached this court and question arose whether a permit could be granted to an inter State transport operator for the whole of the route despite the fact that a part of the route overlapped a part of notified intra State route. In Mysore State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mysore Revenue Appellate tribunal this court did not enter into the question whether the State Transport Undertaking was empowered to prohibit the use of any portion of a route by inter-State operators as it was of opinion that even if it was shown that State Transport Undertaking could totally exclude inter-State operators from using any part of a notified route, it was a question of interpretation of the Scheme framed under Section 68C of the Act whether it intended to exclude private operators from operating on the route totally or partially. The bench thereafter, on an examination of the Scheme, came to the conclusion that it excluded only the operators named therein. The bench held that the interstate operators were not meant to be denied the use of the overlapping portions of routes covered by the Scheme as their names were not mentioned as required by the Rules. The bench further observed that the Scheme mentioned complete exclusion, but this exclusion was in respect of operators providing services between the termini mentioned therein and not merely using overlapping portions of the notified routes incidentally. Soon after this judgment was rendered another appeal filed by the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation in respect of intra State route of a different Scheme came up for consideration before a three Judge bench in Mysore State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mysore State Transport Appellate tribunal. Even though the nature of permits was different the bench observed that there was, "no difference in the principle applicable to both the cases. The principle governing intraState routes has been extended to inter State routes vide S. Abdul Khader Saheb v. Mysore Revenue Appellate tribunal, Bangalore. v. Mysore State Transport Appellate tribunal. Even though the nature of permits was different the bench observed that there was, "no difference in the principle applicable to both the cases. The principle governing intraState routes has been extended to inter State routes vide S. Abdul Khader Saheb v. Mysore Revenue Appellate tribunal, Bangalore. As the recent decision to which reference has been made seems to take a contrary view to that taken by even larger benches of this court, we find it necessary to reexamine the question posed before us." The majority in the bench after examining the matter in detail held: "With respect we do not doubt the correctness of the decision in Nilkanth Prasad case which followed the decisions of different Constitution benches of this court." The effect of this decision was that the decision rendered in Mysore State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mysore Revenue Appellate tribunal was held not to be good law. Yet it appears the inter-State permit holders have been plying with corridor restriction and the objection raised by the Corporation was not accepted presumably because the latter case related to intra-State route. However, the dispute about inter-State route reached this court again in Civil Nos. 1198-1282 of 1986. By that time the decision in Constitution bench case in Adarsh Travels Bus Service v. State of U.P. had been rendered. The bench, therefore, did not enter into merits and directed the State Transport Authority to decide it again in the light of Adarsh Travels case. This time the objection was upheld by the State Transport Authority and the appeal and writ petition filed against the order cancelling permits of the appellants also failed.” 12. In the case of ‘KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. NARAYANA RAO’, reported in ILR 1993 KAR 2274, the Division Bench of this court held thus: “20. Ratio of several Decisions rendered by the Supreme Court point out that when permit is sought by a private operator in respect of a route which overlaps the notified route, then no permit could be granted to the private operator over the notified route if the Scheme does not contemplate the granting of such a permit.” 13. In the light of the dictum pronounced by the Hon’ble Courts as aforesaid, Section 104 of the Motor Vehicle Act, is examined. Section 104 runs thus: “104. In the light of the dictum pronounced by the Hon’ble Courts as aforesaid, Section 104 of the Motor Vehicle Act, is examined. Section 104 runs thus: “104. Restriction on grant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route.— Where a 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: to "104. Restriction on grant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route.—Where a 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:" 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. tc "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." 14. From the reading of these judgments, vis-a-vis Section 104 of the Act, it is clear that where a Scheme has been published under subsection (3) of Section 100 in respect of any notified area or notified group, the Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority is precluded from granting any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. From the reading of these judgments, vis-a-vis Section 104 of the Act, it is clear that where a Scheme has been published under subsection (3) of Section 100 in respect of any notified area or notified group, the Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority is precluded from granting any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. Section 68(c) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 is in pari materia with section 104 of the 1988 Act. 15. In NARAYANAPPA’S case [supra], Anekal Scheme was considered. The relevant clauses of Anekal Scheme and Dharwad Scheme are reproduced below: Mysore Gazette, April 23, 1959 PART IV RULES, ORDERS AND NOTIFICATIONS UNDER MYSORE ACTS AND ORDINANCES OTHER THAN NOTIFICATIONS UNDER LAND ACQUISITION ACT NOTIFICATION No.HD 89(2)/TMP/59 dated 15th April 1968 (Chaitra 25, Saka Hra, 1961) APPROVED SCHEME 1. The area in relation to which the Scheme is approved Part of Bangalore District via., Bangalore Scheme is approved. (Bangalore North, Bangalore South, Anekal and Hoskote Taluks) 2. Whether City or Town service Mofussil services. or mofussil service. 3. The route or routes (with their starting points, termini, intermediate stations and route length) in which the State Transport Undertaking all introduce its services to the exclusion of private operators. As in Statement 1 appended. Mysore Gazette dated 16.07.1959 NOTIFICATION No.RD III TMP 59 Dated Bangalore, 11th July 1959. APPROVED SCHEME 1. The area in relation to which the Scheme is approved Dharwar and North Kanara Districts and part of Belgaum and Bijapur District. 2. Whether City or Town service or mofussil service. City, Town and Mofussil services. 3. The route or routes (with their starting points, termini, intermediate stations and route length) in which the State Transport Undertaking all introduce its services to the exclusion of private operators. As in Statement 1 appended. 16. The Dharwar Scheme is an area Scheme as well as the route Scheme. In Dharwar Scheme, the entire area of Dharwad and North Canara Districts and part of Belgaum and Bijapur districts are approved whereas in Anekal Scheme part of Bangalore district via Bangalore Scheme is approved. The area and the part of the area would make the difference between the two as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3. In Dharwar Scheme, the entire area of Dharwad and North Canara Districts and part of Belgaum and Bijapur districts are approved whereas in Anekal Scheme part of Bangalore district via Bangalore Scheme is approved. The area and the part of the area would make the difference between the two as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3. The said argument advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 appears to have some force, as could be seen on the comparative analysis of the two approved Schemes. Much emphasis is placed on by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the appeals before the Tribunal in appeal No.253/1992 and connected matters, it was the stance of the KSRTC that the Dharwar Scheme is a route Scheme and the same was upheld by the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the paragraph of the Judgment of the Tribunal which reads as under: “22. The Deputy Law Officer for KSRTC contended that the Dharwar Scheme is a route Scheme and it is the routes referred in the statement appended to clause (3) which are notified and further contended that the clauses 1 and 3 of the Scheme should be read together in order to ascertain the intention of the Scheme. The further made reference to the intention of the Scheme. The further made reference to the modified Dharwar Scheme and contended that in Col.No.1 of the Scheme there is no reference to Shimoga but by the modification exemption is given to the existing operators of the route a portion of which lies in Shimoga District that if the Scheme is treated as an area Scheme, there was no need to give such an exemption. He also contended that the decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.29109/94 disposed on 7.4.95 cannot be relied as the decision has of the Hon’ble Supreme Court report in AIR 1960 SC Page 1073 and the clauses in Dharwar Scheme and Anekal Scheme and also made reference to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.20543/1984 and connected cases disposed on 27.12.1984.” 27. It is clear from this clause that the existing operators with regard to portions of the route in interdistrict lying in the District of Shimoga are given exemption. It is clear from this clause that the existing operators with regard to portions of the route in interdistrict lying in the District of Shimoga are given exemption. If the Dharwar Scheme is an area Scheme there was no media to exempt the existing operator of interdistrict routes a portion of which is lying in Shimoga District. The said exemption clause indicates that the Dharwar Scheme not only relates to the routes within the Districts of Dharwar, Karwar parts fo Belgaum and Bijapur but also the routes which are beyond these Districts. This circumstances indicates that Dharwad Scheme is a route Scheme.” 17. This judgment of the Tribunal would not be binding on this Court. More particularly, owing to the subsequent judgments rendered by this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court. The law on the point being more crystallised, any stance to the contrary, taken by the KSRTC in the earlier proceedings is not relevant. 18. In Adarsh Travels supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that no permit can be granted to any private operator whose route traversed or overlapped any part or whole or that notified route. Intersection of notified route may not amount to traversing or overlapping route. In the Dharwar Scheme, 170 routes are notified. The arguments of the petitioner that none of these routes traverses or overlaps any part or whole or that notified route cannot be acceptable. For example, Lakshmeshwara to Savanur, it is the same route at Sl.Nos.47 and 48 of the routes. It is evident that the routes claimed by the petitioner comes within the area Scheme of Dharwar and North Kanara District. The area as a whole if construed to be the notified area Scheme, then no private operator is entitled to operate in the notified area unless specified by the Scheme. So it is necessary to analyze what is area Scheme and the route Scheme. Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicle of the Act, provides for a nationalization of transport services in the manner prescribed therein. “Route” is defined under Section 2(38) of the Act “a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another”. Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicle of the Act, provides for a nationalization of transport services in the manner prescribed therein. “Route” is defined under Section 2(38) of the Act “a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another”. “Area” is defined under Section 2(1) of the Act as “in relation to any provision of this act, means such area as the State Government, may, having regard to the requirements of that provision, specify by notification in the Official Gazette.” 19. Dharwad Scheme was approved under Section 68(2)(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 and was notified in the gazette under Section 68(c) of the said Act. 20. Keeping in mind the definition clauses of ‘area’ and the ‘route’ as aforesaid, the Dharwar Scheme is examined. Clause-1 of the approved Scheme contemplates the area in relation to which the Scheme is approved. Clause-3 relates to the route or routes. The area specifies Dharwar and North Kanara Districts. Route specified in Clause-3 as per the Statement-1 appended. The statement-1 appended to the Scheme provides 170 routes. Clauses – 1 and 3 of the Scheme has to be read together to determine the scope of the Scheme. It makes it clear that clause-1 is the area Scheme and clause-3 is the route Scheme since the route Scheme is extended to other neighbouring districts such as Shimoga and Mangalore apart from Dharwar, North Canara and parts of Belgaum and Bijapur. This view is also supported by the Judgment of this Court in the case of DURGAMBA MOTORS [supra]. In the said decision, the validity of Dharwar Scheme as modified by the Notification dated 13.7.1992 was considered and held that by the amendment dated 13.7.1992 extending permit holders on another district routes were entitled to operate with route overlapping portions of the notified route lying in the Districts of Dharwar and North Canara without picking or setting down passengers. The amendment of the Dharwar approved Scheme as modified by the Notification dated 13.7.1992 establishes that it is extending beyond the area specified therein. The Judgment in the case of DURGAMBA MOTORS [supra] was confirmed by the Division Bench and the same has reached finality. 21. The amendment of the Dharwar approved Scheme as modified by the Notification dated 13.7.1992 establishes that it is extending beyond the area specified therein. The Judgment in the case of DURGAMBA MOTORS [supra] was confirmed by the Division Bench and the same has reached finality. 21. In the case of T.V.NATARAJA [supra], the Hon’ble Apex Court considering ADARSH TRAVELS’ case [supra], has held that 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 68D of the Act 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. 22. In H.C. NARAYANAPPA’s case [supra], the Hon’ble Apex Court expressed that column No.1 of the approved Scheme [Anekal Scheme] undoubtedly describes the area in relation to which the Scheme is approved, but by the designation of the area in the Scheme, the intention to exclude either wholly or partially the operators of the stage carriages from that area is not evinced either expressly or by implication. This observation of the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Apex Court is reconsidered in ADARSH TRAVELS’ case [supra], by another Constitution Bench, which has categorically held that “once a Scheme is published in relation to any area or portion thereof, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial of other person 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.” (emphasis supplied) 23. Yet another Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘G.T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS’ reported in [2016] 7 SCALE 200, has reiterated the same view. In view of the subsequent Judgments of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the emphasis placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on H.C. NARAYANAPPA’s case [supra], would not be applicable for the reasons aforesaid. 24. In view of the subsequent Judgments of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the emphasis placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on H.C. NARAYANAPPA’s case [supra], would not be applicable for the reasons aforesaid. 24. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the permit sought by the petitioner for the routes do not traverse or overlap on the notified routes is also not appreciable in view of the latest Constitution Bench Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in ADARSH TRAVELS’ case [supra] as when the area or route is notified, no private operator is entitled to the permit except as provided in the Scheme. 25. The Tribunal has referred to the Notification dated 13.5.2011, amendment carried to the 17 Schemes wherein Sl.Nos.1 to 7 are in relation to the area, Sl.No.1 relates to Dharwar Scheme. Sl.Nos.8 to 17 relates to routes. This notification also suggests, Dharwar Scheme as an area scheme. Another reason assigned by the Tribunal is as in much as the format and wordings of the area Scheme and the route Scheme which are different and distinct. These subsequent notifications come to the aid of interpreting the approval scheme as an area scheme. No infirmity or irregularity is found in the orders impugned herein. The writ petitions are bereft of any merit. For the reasons aforesaid, writ petitions stand dismissed.