JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Special Government Pleader as well as the learned standing counsel for the KSRTC. 2. This batch of writ petitions are filed challenging the orders issued by the Regional Transport Authorities rejecting the requests made by the petitioners for variation of permits. The parties and documents are being referred to in this judgment as in W.P.(C)No.4188 of 2018 unless specified. 3. It is contended that the petitioners are existing private stage carriage operators. They had been granted permits on routes, portions of which overlapped certain notified routes on which the KSRTC was operating services. It is stated that the petitioners' applications are for consideration of variation of permits with respect to portions of the route which do not overlap any notified route of the KSRTC. However, the applications preferred by the petitioners in these cases have been rejected by the Regional Transport Authorities concerned on the contention that the petitioners' permits are saved permits which overlap on certain portions of notified routes and that no application for variation can be considered in respect of such saved permits. The allegation therefore is that the petitioners' right to get variation of permits where there is absolutely no overlapping on any notified route is being curtailed by the illegal actions of the Regional Transport Authorities. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contend that Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short, 'the Act') provides for variation of permits. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contend that Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short, 'the Act') provides for variation of permits. Section 80(3) reads as follows: “(3) An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit: Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route to increase the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vehicles: Provided further that,- (i) in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres; (ii) in the case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twentyfour kilometres from the termini, and any such variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof.” 5. It is contended that Chapter VI of the Act provides for special provisions relating to State transport undertakings. Section 98 states that the provisions of the Chapter and the rules and orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter V or in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. Section 99 provides for preparation and publication of proposal regarding road transport service of a State transport undertaking. Section 99 provides for preparation and publication of proposal regarding road transport service of a State transport undertaking. The provision states that such a proposal for operating by the State transport undertaking whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise, can be formulated by the State giving particulars of the nature of services proposed and the area or route proposed to be covered. Section 100 provides for objection to the proposal and approval or modification of the proposal on hearing such objections. Section 100(3) of the Act provides that the scheme relating to the proposal as approved or modified under sub-section (2) shall be published in the Official Gazette and in one news paper and the scheme shall become final on the date of its publication 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. Section 104 provides for a restriction with regard to grant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. 6. In the instant case, it is contended that 31 routes were notified in the State of Kerala in the year 2006 by way of preliminary notification. Later, by notification dated 14.7.2009, final scheme was notified, by which permits issued in the private sector on or before 9.5.2006 were permitted to continue till the dates of expiry of the respective permits. The 2009 notification provided that such permit holders would also be entitled to grant of regular-permits and when State transport undertaking applies for introduction of new services, corresponding number of existing private stage carriage permits in the routes would not be renewed. The scheme also stated that as regards the permits issued after 9.5.2006, temporary permits alone shall be issued. It is stated that clause 19 of the 2009 scheme provided that the right to operate any new service and to increase the trips in the 31 routes or portions thereof will be reserved exclusively for State transport undertakings. 7. It is stated that thereafter, a notification was issued on 16.7.2013 interdicting operation of Fast Passenger, Super Fast, Super Express, Super Deluxe and Luxury Services by private operators all over Kerala. 7. It is stated that thereafter, a notification was issued on 16.7.2013 interdicting operation of Fast Passenger, Super Fast, Super Express, Super Deluxe and Luxury Services by private operators all over Kerala. It was provided in the notification that permits issued in the private sector shall be allowed to continue till the dates of expiry of the respective permits and thereafter, no permits should be renewed and no permit, in the higher class of services, regular or temporary, shall be issued afresh. Clause 18 of the above notification provided that the right to operate any class of service other than ordinary service in the State of Kerala and to increase the trips shall be reserved exclusively with the State Transport Undertaking. It is stated that subsequently the notification dated 14.7.2009 was sought to be modified and Ext.P8 draft notification was issued. Clause 4 of the notification dated 14.7.2009 was sought to be modified to the effect that permits granted and issued in the private sector as on 14.7.2009 would be permitted to operate as ordinary or limited stop ordinary services and that the maximum distance prescribed in the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 shall not apply to the saved permits provided that further extension or variations shall not be allowed under any circumstances. It is stated that clause 19 also states that the State Transport Undertakings reserve the right to operate additional services or increase the number of trips on each route in the Annexure as per traffic demand. There was no substantial modification in the routes notified. Thereafter, amendment was carried out in the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. By Ext.P10 in W.P.(C) No.4188 of 2018, Rules were amended as follows: 1. Short title and commencement- (1) These rules may be called the Kerala Motor Vehicles (1st Amendment) Rules, 2017. (2) They shall come into force at once. 2. Amendment of the Rules.- In the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in Rule 2, sub-clause (oa) shall be relettered as sub-clause (ob) and before sub-clause (ob) as so relettered, the following sub-clause shall be inserted, namely:- “(oa) “Ordinary Limited Stop Service” means a service, which is operated on a route having a distance of not exceeding 140 Kilometres with limited number of stops, having at least one stop in every fare stage.”; 8. It is stated that thereafter, Ext.P11 notification was issued by which the modifications to the scheme were notified with certain further changes. Clause 4 (with regard to exclusion of other operators) of the modified scheme reads as follows: “Yes, partially. The permits granted in the Private Sector as on 14th July, 2009 will be permitted to operate as Ordinary or Ordinary Limited Stop Service. The maximum distance prescribed in the rule 2(oa) in the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 shall apply to these saved permits provided that further extension or variation shall not be allowed under any circumstance. This Scheme shall not affect the operation of other State Transport Undertakings.” 9. Clause 19 of the scheme also provided that State Transport Undertaking reserves the right to operate additional services or increase the number of trips on each route in the annexure as per traffic rules. The explanatory note to Ext.P11 reads as follows: “As per notification issued as G.O(P) No.42/2009/Trans. Dated 14th July 2009, and published as SRO No.608/2009 in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.1272 dated 14th July, 2009. Government of Kerala issued a schedule for providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated passenger road transport service in the 31 routes all over Kerala. Thereafter, the Government of Kerala decided to modify the said Scheme and issued a preliminary notification as No.12878/B1/2015/Tran. Dated 8th July 2016 and published in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.359 dated 11th February, 2016. In clause 4 of the said notification, it was proposed that the permits granted and issued in the private sector as on 14th July, 2009 will be permitted to operate as Ordinary or Limited Stop Ordinary Service. It was also proposed that the maximum distance prescribed in rule 2(oa) in the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 shall not be applicable to these permits. But subsequently clause (oa) of rule 2 of the said rules have been amended so as to limit the route length. As per section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the State Government have the power to modify any approved Scheme after issuing a preliminary notification for the purpose. But subsequently clause (oa) of rule 2 of the said rules have been amended so as to limit the route length. As per section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the State Government have the power to modify any approved Scheme after issuing a preliminary notification for the purpose. Therefore after considering the objections and hearing the objectors and the representatives of the State Transport Undertaking, the Government have now decided to finalize and publish the modified Scheme with the modification that the permits granted and issued to Private Sector as on 14th July, 2009 will be permitted to operate as Ordinary or Ordinary Limited Stop Service subject to a route length having a distance not exceeding 140 kilo meters. The notification is intended to achieve the above object.” 10. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the limitation with regard to variation of permits applies to the notified routes in question. It is admitted that no extension or variation of the permit on any of the routes notified can be sought by any existing operator of any saved permit. Going by the provisions of Chapter VI as well as clauses 4 and 19 of the schemes in question, no new permit, regular or temporary, could also be granted on any notified route except as provided in the scheme. In the above view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the total limitation with regard to the variation or extension of the permit is specifically intended for the higher class of services which were done away with by 2013 notification and in respect of any further variation or extension which would result in the length of the route exceeding 140 kms. 11. In the cases at hand, the contention of the petitioners is that in these batch of cases, there is no question of any extension beyond 140 kms, since none of the routes on which the petitioners are operating has a length of more than 140 kms even after the variation or extension as sought for. 11. In the cases at hand, the contention of the petitioners is that in these batch of cases, there is no question of any extension beyond 140 kms, since none of the routes on which the petitioners are operating has a length of more than 140 kms even after the variation or extension as sought for. Further, it is contended that going by the clear provisions of Chapter VI, as also the schemes which have been produced in W.P.(C) No. 4188 of 2018, the inescapable conclusion is that even in the case of saved permits, what is restricted is variation or extension in respect of the notified routes. It is contended that it is only with respect to any variation or extension on any notified route in the State of Kerala that the restriction would apply and the reasoning of the RTA to the effect that there can be no variation of whatever nature sought for by the saved permit holders on any portion of the route they operate on, irrespective of whether it forms part of the notified route or not, is completely unsustainable, in view of the provisions of law as well as the provisions of the schemes in question. 12. The learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC would contend that the issue of exclusion of private operators from operating on the notified routes stands concluded by decisions of this Court in Luka Devassia v. Regional Transport & Ors. [2015(3)KLJ 76] and of the Apex Court in G.T Venkataswamy Reddy v. State Transport Authority and Others [ (2016) 8 SCC 402 ]. It is contended that there can be no argument that the petitioners had any nature of right to seek variation of saved permits on notified routes. 13. I have considered the contentions advanced. There is no dispute in these cases regarding any operation of higher class of services or operation of routes exceeding 140 Kms. I am also convinced that going by the provisions of Sections 100 and 104 of the Act as well as the provisions of the schemes which have been produced before me, the operators of saved permits cannot contend that they can seek any variation or extension on the notified routes. I am also convinced that going by the provisions of Sections 100 and 104 of the Act as well as the provisions of the schemes which have been produced before me, the operators of saved permits cannot contend that they can seek any variation or extension on the notified routes. However, with respect to the finding that no variation of whatever nature is possible, which appears to be a reasoning taken by the RTA, I am of the opinion that such finding is not supported by the provisions of law or the decisions relied upon. The Division Bench of this Court in Luka Devassia's case (supra)had considered the issue and had come to the definite conclusion, considering the provisions of Sections 98, 100 and 104 of the Act as well as the provisions of the schemes in question, that it is not possible for private operators to carry on operations in the notified route unless otherwise permitted under the scheme itself. It was further held that overlapping on notified routes was permissible only if the scheme permitted such intersection or overlapping. It was held that the challenge to the scheme was not sustainable and that the 2009 scheme as approved was perfectly sustainable. 14. Neither this decision nor the decision of the Apex Court in G.T Venkataswamy Reddy v. State Transport Authority and Others[ (2016) 8 SCC 402 ] is an authority or any proposition that a private operator cannot seek variation on any portion of the route operated by him, be it on the notified route or not. It is true that the Apex Court in G.T. Venkataswamy Reddy's case(supra) has held that the operation of a saved permit would remain frozen with regard to the conditions of the permit. However, from a reading of the judgment, it is clear that the said observation was made with regard to the provisions of the Act as well as the scheme and that it is intended to mean that there could be no variation or extension of any nature on the notified route. However, from a reading of the judgment, it is clear that the said observation was made with regard to the provisions of the Act as well as the scheme and that it is intended to mean that there could be no variation or extension of any nature on the notified route. This is clear from the conclusions at paragraph 51 of the judgment where it is clearly stated that the grant of variation on a notified route will be as good as grant of new permit and once the scheme is formulated and is approved, then all permits on the routes/areas covered by the scheme will be kept frozen by virtue of operation of Section 68-FF of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Section 104 of the MV Act 1988) The consideration therefore was specifically with regard to the status of the permits vis-a-vis the notified area or route. In the above view of the matter, the present view taken by the RTA to the effect that no variation can be sought for even in the case of permits which cover a distance of less than 140 Kms and that even where variation or extension is not sought on the notified route and does not involve the said route, cannot be sustained. 15. The impugned orders are therefore set aside. There will be a direction to the concerned Regional Transport Authorities to consider the request of the petitioners for variation or extension on an individual basis and in case there is no variation or extension is sought for on the notified routes, the same shall be taken up and considered, in accordance with the provisions of Section 80(3) of the Motors Vehicles Act, 1988. The respondent, State Transport Undertaking shall also be heard before orders are passed. These writ petitions are ordered accordingly.