JUDGMENT : B.V. Nagarathna, J. Though these writ petitions are listed for Orders, with the consent of learned counsel or the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel for the second respondent, they are heard finally. 2. Petitioner has assailed Order dated 27.06.2015 passed in R.P.No.182/2014 and Order 04.09.2015 passed in R.P.No.76/2010 by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for the sake of brevity) (Annexures-'B' and 'C'). 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 28.09.2017, a copy of which is at Annexure-'D'. 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.11/93-94 valid up to 06.08.2018 to operate on the route from Bengaluru to Krishnavaram and back. The said permit was initially granted under the provisions of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and issued from 07.08.2008 to 06.08.2013. Thereafter, for the period 07.08.2013 to 06.08.2018, the permit was renewed by the first respondent-authority (Annexure-'A'). 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 07.08.2008 to 06.08.2013, 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.76/2010 which, by its order dated 04.09.2015, allowed the revision petition and set aside the grant of permit. Thereafter, for the period 07.08.2013 to 06.08.2018, the permit was renewed by the first respondent authority. The same was assailed by the second respondent in Revision Petition No.182/2014 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 27.06.2015 allowed the revision petition and set aside the renewal. 5. Thereafter, for the period 07.08.2013 to 06.08.2018, the permit was renewed by the first respondent authority. The same was assailed by the second respondent in Revision Petition No.182/2014 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 27.06.2015 allowed the revision petition and set aside the renewal. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2015 passed in R.P.No.182/2014, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.34382/2015 before this Court, which was disposed off on 07.09.2015 by observing that subsequent to filing of the said writ petition, the State Government had issued Notification dated 05.08.2015 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, along with others, challenged Notification dated 05.08.2015 in W.P.Nos.38054-38057/2015 and connected matters before this Court. On 14.09.2015, this Court granted an interim order in terms of the order passed in W.P.Nos.34265-279/2015 permitting the petitioners to operate their buses on producing relevant evidence. 6. Thereafter, the State Government has issued Notification dated 28.09.2017, 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 orders at Annexure-B and C, as per the Notification of the State Government dated 28.09.2017 those permits holders, who were operating as on 14.01.2002, are exempted from the said scheme. Now 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, validity of grant of 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. 9. Learned counsel for the second respondent Corporation submits that while considering the same, validity of grant of 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. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the second respondent Corporation is with regard to the jurisdiction of the first respondent authority to renew the permit. It is contented 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 petitioners have 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 instance 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 or authority 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 28.09.2017 inasmuch as the petitioner is a saved operator under the said Notification. Therefore, at this point of time, the benefit granted to the petitioners under Notification dated 28.09.2017 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 application for renewal of the permit, is not yet decided in the instant case. 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 application for renewal of the permit, is not yet decided in the instant case. But if 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 earlier permits have run their course and expired and on the basis of that, the benefit is granted to the permit holder under Notification dated 28.09.2017. The said benefit cannot be taken away at this point of time. This observation 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 orders dated 04.09.2015 passed in Revision Petition No.76/2010 and Order dated 27.06.2015, passed in Revision Petition No.182/2014 (Annexures - 'B' and 'C'), which have set aside the renewal of petitioner's permit. The fact remains that by Notification at Annexure-'D' dated 28.09.2017 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 28.09.2017 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-'D') 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 04.09.2015 passed in Revision Petition No.76/2010 and order dated 27.06.2015 passed in Revision Petition No.182/2014 by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal are set aside. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The said consideration shall be made in an expeditious manner and in accordance with law. 14. In the circumstances, order dated 04.09.2015 passed in Revision Petition No.76/2010 and order dated 27.06.2015 passed in Revision Petition No.182/2014 by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal are set aside. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 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. All contentions on both sides are left open to be raised before the first respondent authority.