- (1.) We are clearly of the view that after the judgment of the Constitution bench in M/s. ADARSH TRAVELS BUS SERVICE V. STATE OF UP, AIR 1986 S. C. 319 it is not open to the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority to grant any variation of an existing permit when all operators and motor vehicles except the existing permit holders are prohibited from operating their vehicles on any route or in any area under a Scheme by including additional buses in the permit or by increasing the number of tripe of the bus or buses covered by the existing permit thus increasing the number of Vehicles and/or trips on any route or area in question. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by this court in KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT corporation BANGALORE and ORS. V. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BANGALORE and ORS. [see JT 1987 (1) SC 473, AIR 1987 S. C. 711. ] Issue notice to clarify the true legal position. But having regard to the decision of the M/s. ADARSH TRAVELS (supra) we find that there is no ground to grant any stay order. Stay petition is accordingly dismissed. Shri S. N. Kacker states that there is need for additional buses on the route in question. It is open to the Road Transport Corporation to put additional buses on the route by obtaining Permits under S. 68 F (1a). If the Road Transport Corporation does not put additinal buses it is open to the petitioner to apply for and obtain a temporary permit under S. 68 (f) (IC) of the Motor Vehicles Actwhich shall cease on the issue of the permit to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of that area as provided in that very section.;