Venkataramiah, J. - (1.) The appellant is one of the State Transport Undertakings established in the State of Tamil Nadu. It has questioned in this appeal by special leave the decision of the High Court of Madras in CRP No. 3117 of 1984 affirming an order granting variation of a permit issued under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by virtue of which the respondent is permitted to run a stage carriage on the route between Checkanurani and Madurai which is a part of a notified route Madurai to Kumuli via Checkanurani, Valandur, Usilampatti, and Theni. Before the High Court the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the Regional Transport Authority the appellant had pleaded the publication of a draft scheme under S. 68-C of the Act on June 4, 1976 in respect of the route Madurai to Kumuli as a bar to the grant of a variation of the permit prayed for by the respondent. In this Court the appellant has relied upon the existence of an approved scheme published on June 30, 1976 in respect of the very same route Madurai to Kumuli also as a bar to the order of variation of permit granted in favour of the respondent. The route is common to both the draft scheme dated June 4, 1976 and the approved scheme dated June 30, 1976. We shall, however. consider the effect of the approved scheme on the order granting variation of the permit first.
(2.) The facts of the case are these. On June 30. 1976, as stated earlier, the approved scheme was published under S. 68-D of the, Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette in respect of the route Madurai to Kumuli authorising the appellant to run its stage carriages on that route. By that approved scheme it was proposed to exclude completely all other persons from operating their stage carriage services under permits covering the entire route, referred to above. except those persons mentioned in Annexure 11 to the said scheme without prejudice to any future modifications, variations etc. of their permits. The operators whose names had been mentioned in Annexure 11 to the scheme were persons who were existing operators on the different sectors of the notified route on the date of the publication of the scheme. The respondent was not one of those persons who .,was running a stage carriage service on any part or sector of the route in question on the date of its publication. Hence, his name was not mentioned in Annexure 11 to the scheme. He was then operating a stage carriage service under a permit issued under the Act on the route Batlagundu to Usilampatti which was a non-scheme route. On February 28, 1981 he was able to secure the variation of the said permit from the Regional transport Authority which enabled him to operate on the route measuring 21.4 Kms. from Usilampatti to Checkanurani, which formed a sector of the notified route. The appeal filed against the said order was dismissed and no revision petition was filed against the order dismissing the said appeal. On 23-12-1982 he obtained from the Regional Transport Authority a second variation of his permit under which he was authorised to operate his stage carriage service over a distance of 16.6 Kms. from Checkanurani to Madurai which was also a part of the notified route. An appeal filed against that order was dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. A revision petition was filed under S. 64-B of the Act (as in force in the State of Tamil Nadu) before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision petition. This appeal by special leave is filed against the above order of the High Court.
(3.) As mentioned earlier the appellant pleaded before the High Court that a draft scheme published on June 4,1976 which was still in force was a bar to the grant of variation of the permit authorising the respondent to operate his stage carriage on a sector of the route in respect of which the scheme had been. published. The High Court was of the view that S. 68-F(I-D) could not be considered as a bar for entertaining an application for the variation of a permit since such an application was neither an application for a permit nor for its renewal. In arriving at the said decision it relied upon S. 68-F(I-D) of the Act which read as follows:- "68-F(1-d). Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (I -A) or sub-sec. (1 -C), no permit shall be granted or renewed during the period intervening between the date of publication, under S. 68-C of any scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme in favour of any person for any class of road transport service in relation to an area or route or portion thereof covered by such scheme .............";