JUDGMENT : B.V. Nagarathna, J. Though this writ petition is listed for Orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel for the second respondent, it is heard finally. 2. Petitioner has assailed Order dated 09.06.2015 passed in Revision Petition No.1204/2012 by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for the sake of brevity) (Annexure-'B'). He has sought a direction to the first respondent/Regional Transport Authority to consider the renewal application filed by the petitioner in light of Notification dated 28.9.2017, a copy of which is at Annexure-'C'. The aforesaid prayer has been sought orally by learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. According to the petitioner, he is a stage carriage permit holder bearing permit No. PSTP 12/00- 01 valid up to 18.07.2010 to operate on the route from Attibele to Bengaluru and back. The said permit was initially granted under the provisions of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thereafter it was renewed from 19.7.2010 to 18.7.2015. 4. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid Act provides for grant of stage carriage permits to be operated as intra-regional permits, inter-regional permits and also inter-State routes. That the petitioner was operating under Bengaluru and BTS Scheme. But the routes specified in the Bengaluru Scheme does not permit the State Transport Undertaking to operate exclusively. It is further averred that the Bengaluru Scheme was approved on 23.06.1960. That on account of certain verdicts of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there have been many changes made in the respective Schemes and that on the expiry of the permit, renewal was sought for the period from 19.07.2010 to 18.7.2015, which was granted by the first respondent/authority in favour of the petitioner. However, the same was challenged by the second respondent/Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation before the Tribunal in Revision Petition No.1204/2012 which, by its order dated 09.06.2015 (Annexure-B), allowed the revision petition and set aside the said renewal of permit. 5. However, the same was challenged by the second respondent/Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation before the Tribunal in Revision Petition No.1204/2012 which, by its order dated 09.06.2015 (Annexure-B), allowed the revision petition and set aside the said renewal of permit. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner had filed W.P.Nos.27262/2015 before this Court, which was disposed off on 20.08.2015, by observing that subsequent to filing of the said writ petition, the State Government had issued Notification dated 5.8.2015 whereunder, further proceedings on the Draft Notification were dropped and therefore, nothing survived to be considered in the writ petition and dismissed the same as having become Infructuous. Liberty was however reserved to the petitioner to challenge the said notification. Thereafter, petitioner challenged Notification dated 5.8.2015 in W.P. Nos. 19590-591/2016 before this Court, which was disposed off on 03.05.2017. 6. Thereafter, the State Government has issued Notification dated 28.9.2017, which is with regard to the modification of several schemes including the Bengaluru and BTS Scheme. But since the permit of the petitioner was set aside by the impugned order at Annexure-B, but at the same time, as per the Notification of the State Government dated 28.9.2017 those permits holders, who were operating as on 14.01.2002, are exempted from the said scheme, the question that would now arise is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the permit. It is in this regard, the submissions have been advanced by the respective counsel. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent and learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the material on record. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that this writ petition could be disposed off in terms of orders passed in similar writ petitions by directing the respondent-authority to consider renewal of permit. 9. Learned counsel for the second respondent Corporation submits that while considering the same, the validity of grant of the original permit would also have to be considered and all contentions of the second respondent in this regard would have to be considered by the first respondent authority. In this regard, reliance is placed on a judgment of this court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (1994) ILR(Kar) 1697 (DB). 10. In this regard, reliance is placed on a judgment of this court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (1994) ILR(Kar) 1697 (DB). 10. One of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the second respondent Corporation is with regard to jurisdiction of the first respondent authority to renew the permit. It is contended that the bifurcation of Bangalore District took place on 11.11.1992 and thereafterwards there has been Bangalore Urban District and Bangalore Rural District. That the Bangalore Scheme and BTS Scheme is under the jurisdiction of the Bangalore Urban District, but the petitioner has been making applications before the first respondent Bangalore Rural District Authority for renewal of permit and a direction is now being sought to the first respondent authority to once again renew the said permit. It is contended that the first respondent authority has no jurisdiction to renew the permit in the instant case. 11. In response to this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the contention regarding jurisdiction is raised by the respondent Corporation and the first respondent authority comes to the conclusion that it does not have jurisdiction to renew the permit, but having regard to the fact that on earlier occasions, it had renewed the permit and those permits have expired and that petitioner has had the benefit of those permits, the same cannot come in the way of depriving benefit under Notification dated 28.9.2017 inasmuch as the petitioner is a saved operator under the said Notification. Therefore, at this point of time, the benefit granted to the petitioner under Notification dated 28.9.2017 cannot be taken away merely because the first respondent authority would come to a conclusion that it does not have jurisdiction to grant renewal of permit. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that equities between the parties may be balanced in that regard. 12. The question as to whether the first respondent authority has indeed jurisdiction to entertain an application for renewal of the permit, is not yet decided in the instant case. But if the first respondent authority is to come to a conclusion that it does not have jurisdiction or authority to renew the permit in the instant case, an appropriate order may be made in that regard. But if the first respondent authority is to come to a conclusion that it does not have jurisdiction or authority to renew the permit in the instant case, an appropriate order may be made in that regard. But the benefit of the earlier renewal granted by the first respondent authority cannot be taken away by the conclusion to be arrived at by it while considering the renewal of permit in the instant case. In other words, since the earlier permits have run their course and expired and on the basis of that, the benefit is granted to the permit holder in the notification dated 28.9.2017. The said benefit cannot be taken away at this point of time. This observation is being made on the basis of de facto principle. At any rate, the Notification itself is a subject matter of several writ petitions pending adjudication before this court. 13. The detailed narration of facts above would not call for reiteration. Despite order dated 9.6.2015 passed in Revision Petition No.1204/2012 (Annexure- 'B'), which has set aside the renewal of petitioner's permit, the fact remains that by Notification at Annexure-'C' dated 28.9.2017 insofar as Bengaluru and BTS Scheme is concerned, all those persons who were operating as on 14.01.2002 are exempted from the said Scheme. Therefore, in view of the latest Notification dated 28.9.2017 modifying inter alia, the Bangalore and BTS scheme, the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to renewal of his permit would have to be considered afresh. Therefore, the writ petition could be disposed off by directing the first respondent to consider the renewal application of the petitioner in light of the Notification dated 28.09.2017 (Annexure-'C') in accordance with law. The said consideration shall be made in an expeditious manner and in accordance with law. 14. In the circumstances, order dated 9.6.2015 passed in Revision Petition No.1204/2012 by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal is set aside. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed off in the aforesaid terms. 15. Since parties are represented by their respective counsel, they are directed to appear before the first respondent on 03.09.2018 without expecting any separate notices from the said authority. The first respondent-authority shall consider the application seeking renewal of permit within a period of one month from 03.09.2018. It is made clear that till the permit is renewed, the petitioner shall not operate on the routes. The first respondent-authority shall consider the application seeking renewal of permit within a period of one month from 03.09.2018. It is made clear that till the permit is renewed, the petitioner shall not operate on the routes. All contentions on both sides are left open to be raised before the first respondent authority.