JUDGMENT
T.N. Singh, J.
1. Admittedly, the petitioner is a “State Undertaking” within the meaning of Section 68-A(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short; the ‘Act’. On a permit being granted on 6-4-1988 for a period of five years, with effect from 10-4-1988, to Nirmal Kumar Chordia, by Regional Transport Authority, Kota, as per Annexure P/5(a), and the same being countersigned as per Annexure P/9 by the Assistant Secretary, State Transport Authority, Madhya Pradesh, on 7-4-1988, those have been impugned on the writ side, in this Court, by the petitioner, as illegal and without jurisdiction. The permit aforesaid is for an inter-State route, Raipur-Indore, via Soyat, Susner, Agar. Ghosla, Ujjain, with corridor restriction as to picking up or setting down passengers between the portion Raipur-Chavli.
2. The permit, it may be noted, was issued on a direction made by the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan vide order passed us per Annexure P/2, on 4-2-1988. However, as per Clause 15 of the permit, the same was made conditional to counter-signature of the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Madhya Pradesh Gwalior. What is also undisputed is that respondent Chordia had made an application for permit to operate on the route Indore-Jaipur via Kota, staking his claim on the basis of the reciprocal transport agreement (hereafter “agreement), dt. 6-5-1975 (sic) between the States” of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. But, that was rejected on 26-7-1987 by R. T. A., Kota, as per Annexure P/l. The Appellate Tribunal, on being approached, took the view that there was a vacancy in the inter-statal route Jaipur-Indore under the agreement and that although a portion of the route (from Jaipur to Raipur) was covered by a Scheme made under Section 68-D(3) of the Act, the prayer of the petitioner for curtailing that portion could be allowed and a permit could be granted for Raipur-Indore route. It was also held that R. T. A., Kota, was wrong in taking the view that the entire route from Raipur to Indore was within the State of Madhya Pradesh inasmuch as Raipur was within the State of Rajasthan and the M. P. border was 8 K. M. S. away from Raipur. Petitioner’s learned counsel has, accordingly challenged mainly the order dt. 4-2-1988 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.
3. On several grounds, the entitlement of respondent Chordia to operate his vehicle on the concerned route under the permit and under the counter-signature, aforesaid, is challenged. We propose to deal separately with each of the contentions raised by Shri Nigudkar, appearing for the petitioner. The first question to be determined is, whether in terms of the agreement above referred, the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur could grant respondents prayer or R.T.A., Kota, could issue the permit pursuant to the direction made in appeal. We propose to extract, therefore, relevant portions from the said agreement, a copy of which respondent Chordia has filed with his return as Annexure P/1.
4. In the preamble of the agreement is staled, inter alia, that “The number and routes of inter-Statal permits agreed to in respect of stage carriages…….. in accordance with this
agreement may be reviewed periodically at the instance of either State”. Clause 4 states, inter alia, “Routes recommended for countersignature shall be incorporated in the original permits by the authorities granting the permits before recommending them for countersignature.” Clause 11 deals specifically with “stage carriages” of which we extract below the relevant portion on which Shri Nigudkar has placed implicit reliance :
“(a) Reciprocal arrangements in regard to the operation of stage carriages on inter-State routes between Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan shall be according to the details contained in Appendix ‘A’.
(b) The number of trips allocated for each State on each inter-State route shall be fixed as far as possible according to the mileage falling in each Stage. A trip for purposes of this agreement will mean one single trip daily. The routes mentioned in appendix ‘A’ shall always mean the shortest direct route connecting the two termini lying in the two States through the places mentioned therein. Any discripancy discovered later in the mileage shown in the said appendix shall promptly be corrected through correspondence between the two transport authorities and shall not be treated is any modification of the agreement.
(c) The number of daily single trips and number of permits shall be strictly as fixed under the agreement and will not exceed under any circumstances. All such permits shall be got duly countersigned by the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority concerned as the case may be in other State.”
5. In the Appendix A, referred in the afore-extracted Sub-clause (a), at S. No. 57 is indicated the concerned route as, “Indore-Jaipur via Kota” of which total length in K.M.S is stated as 664 and the portion thereof in the State of Rajasthan is said to be 364 K.Ms. and
in M. P. 200 K.M.S. (sic). Other particulars concerning the said route to be noted are those given in Cols. 8 and 9, Rajas than operators are supposed (o operate in the State of Madhya Pradesh on that route for a length of 400 K.M.s. while the Madhya Pradesh operators can do so in the State of Rajasthan for a length of 728 K.M.S. As per Cols. (10) and (11) respectively, Rajasthan and M. P. operators share equally the permits on the route in question, four each. Importantly, it is also to be noted that although in the said Appendix as many as 99 separate “routes” are specified, there is no mention of such route as Raipur-Indore, via Soyat (a place in M. P.). As to route Jaipur-Indore, specified at S. No. 57 of the Appendix, let it also be noted that the operators were required to run the service via Kota, a place in Rajasthan. At this stage, we may also profitably note that the term “route” is defined in Section 2(28-A) of the Act to mean “a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another”.
6. Although it would be necessary to consider the interplay of certain provisions of Chapters IV and IV-A of the Act to resolve desperate controversies raised in this petition, it may be stated only this much at this stage that according to Section 68-B of Chapter IV-A, the provisions of that Chapter “shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter IV of this Act or any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any -such law”. We are required, therefore, to look at the provisions first of Chap. IV, captioned “Control of Transport Vehicles” inasmuch as the general provision as to making of application and grant of permits are to be read therein in Sections 42 to 68 Chap. IV-A merely deals with the rights of special class of operators, being captioned “Special provisions relating to State Undertakings”. Section 42 prohibits use of any vehicle for carrying goods or passengers at a public place without a “permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority”, hereinafter R. T. A./S. T. A. respectively. Whether for
inter or intra-State routes, applications for permit are to be made to the concerned R. T. A. or S. T. A. as per provisions of Section 45. In case of an application for a stage carriage permit, “the route or routes or the area or areas to which the application relates” must be specified as per Section 46. For operating in any inter-State route, according to Section 47(1-H) preference is required to be given to an application of a State Transport Undertaking.
7. According to the Proviso to Section 48(1), “no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the application” made in respect of a stage carriage permit. Under Section 57(3) the R. T. A. is required to publish the application or the substance thereof in the prescribed manner, made for a stage carriage permit, specifying the date by which the representation in connection therewith may be submitted. The decision to allow or reject the application for permit for any route is taken after public hearing is made on the representation and the application and according to Section 58, the R. T. A. is authorised to grant permit for a period, “not less than three years and not more than five years”. We propose now to quote relevant portions of Sub-sections (3), (3-A) and (3-B) of Section63 :
“(3) The provisions of the Chapter relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures of permits :
Provided that it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in Section 57 for the grant of countersignatures of permits, where the permits granted in any one State are required to be countersigned by the State Transport Authority of another State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned as a result of any agreement arrived at between the States after complying with the requirements of Sub-section (3-A), or for the grant of countersignatures of permits in pursuance of any direction issued by the Commission under Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 63-A.
(3-A) Every proposal to enter into an agreement between the States referred to in
the proviso to Sub-section (3) and every proposal in such agreement to fix the number of permits which is proposed to be granted or countersigned in respect of each route or area, shall be published by each of the Slate Governments concerned in the Official Gazette, together with a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted, and the date, not being less than thirty days from the dale of such publication, on which and the authority by which, and the time and place at which, the proposal and any representations received in connection therewith will be considered.
(3-B) Every agreement arrived at between the States shall, in so far as it relates to the grant of countersignature of permits, be published in the Official Gazette by each of the Stales concerned and the State Transport Authority of the State and the Regional Transport Authority concerned shall give effect to it. ”
8. Reading conjointly the provisions of Sections 45, 46, 47 (1-H), 48, 57 and 63 of the Act, we are of the view that an application for a permit to operate a vehicle on an inter-State route can be dealt with in only two ways – in accordance with the provisions of the reciprocal Agreement contemplated under Section 63(3-A) when such an Agreement is in vogue concerning the “route” applied for and in the absence of such an agreement for the “route” applied for, in accordance with the provisions of Section 57. In the case of an inter-State route which is not included in an Agreement, following the provisions of Section 57 such an application has to be published and opportunity to file objections thereto has to be afforded to other transport operators. The Act having contemplated categorically in Section 46 as also in Section 48 (Proviso) that the “route” in respect whereto permit is applied must be specified, that requirement being fundamental and crucial to grant of a permit care is taken in Section 63(3-A) to maintain the primacy of that requirement in case of an agreement also. Because in a proposal for a reciprocal Agreement contemplated under Section 63(3-A) the “routes” are specified and published in Gazette and objections thereto are
entertained and heard in the same manner as done in the case of an application for a route not covered by an agreement, proviso to Section 63(3) expressly dispenses with the requirement of following the provisions of Section 57 in the case of the requirement of countersignature for an inter-State route covered by an Agreement. It can be logically supposed, therefore, that when jurisdiction is exercised by the concerned Authority to grant a permit under an agreement, that can only be done in strict confirmity with the requirements of the Agreement in order to ensure compliance with the provisions of Section 63(3-A) as respects, in particular, the “route”, otherwise the permit shall not be legally valid. Indeed, any deviation in respect of any of provisions of the agreement based on reciprocity would make permit granted thereunder ultra vires the agreement. If in that case, it would become necessary to see if the permit could have been validly granted or countersignaturely validly recommended by the Authority concerned otherwise than under the agreement or, in other words, to ascertain as to whether steps had been taken to deal with the application or the recommendation for countersignature in accordance with the provisions of Section 57, that exigency would ensue from the inapplicability of the proviso to Section 63(3). Be it noted in this connection that the provision of countersignature in case of an inter-State permit envisaged under Section 63(1) is mandatory and non-fulfilment of that requirement renders the permit invalid and useless because the legislature has itself made an exception to the provision in the three provisos of the said section, only in the prescribed circumstances.
9. The view we have taken receives support from a decision on which Shri Gupta has relied. He has drawn our attention to para 5of the Report in Goverdhan Lal, AIR 1988 SC 1676 wherein their Lordships were evidently not required to deal with the controversy facing us, but the extract which their Lordships made in part 5 of the report from an earlier decision of the Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim, AIR 1970 SC 1542, lends support to our view. It was held in
Mohd. Ibrahim’s case that even for an inter-Stale permit, an application has to be made which has to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Chap. IV of the Act and that Section 57 would apply to such application except to the extent when the case is covered by the proviso to Section 63(3) and the permit is purported to be granted in pursuance to a reciprocal agreement. Although Shri Gupta emphatically argued that to a permit granted under an agreement the countersignature made in terms of Sub-section 63(3-B) is not assailable because the concerned authority countersigning the permit is statutorily required to “give effect to it” (provisions concerning grant of countersignature under the agreement), the fallacy underlying his argument appears to us too obvious. Counsel evidently expects the Court to suppose that permit under the Agreement was granted in accordance with, and in strict compliance with, the provisions of the Agreement. We wonder how it can at all be submitted that even if a permit under an Agreement is granted in violation of the provisions thereof, the permit could still be called to be a permit validly granted under the agreement so as to attract the provisions of Section 63(3-B). Counsel relied on a Bench decision of this Court in Abdul Majid, AIR 1973 Madh Pra 213 to stress the observation made in that case that “the effect of the proviso to Section 63(3) is that when there is an inter-State Agreement, the countersignature of the permit cannot be opposed and so cannot be refused”. We are totally at a loss to understand the relevance of that holding to the instant controversy going to the root of validity of the permit. Counsel also relied on Apex Court’s decision on Purushottam Bhai Poonam Bhai v. S. T. A. T., M. P., Gwalior, in C. A. No. 762/ 63, decided on 14-4-1964, short-noted in 1968 MPLJ (SN) No. 2 page 2. Therein it was held that “the effect of Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 57 is that the party who had not notified its objection within the lime prescribed would be precluded from claiming a hearing in relation to the grant of a permit on an application duly advertised at the original or appellate stage”. We are very clear in our minds that the holding
extracted has no application at all to the instant case inasmuch as the purport of Section 63 (3-B) is not only different, but the holding rather stresses primacy of the requirement of an application for a permit, or for that matter for countersignature under Section 63(3), to be “duly advertised” to be able to take away the right of other transport operators to challenge any permit granted or countersignature made in violation of any statutory provision.
10. Although under Section 43 a State Government is enabled to enter into an agreement with the Central Government or any other State Government for the purpose of “regulation of motor transport generally”, the specific statutory entitlement in terms of Section 63 (3-A) to enter into the “reciprocal agreement” by State for the purpose contemplated thereunder is expressly confined to such “route or area” as are proposed, published and finalized after considering representations made in regard thereto. No permit, therefore, on any inter-Statal route can be granted by any Authority pursuant to an Agreement which is not envisaged in specific terms under the Agreement. Indeed, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(28-A) of the Act, care was accordingly taken in the instant case to indicate the two termini of the inter-State route Indore-Jaipur, contemplated under the Agreement. There is much substance, therefore, in the contention of Shri Nigudkar that the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur acted illegally and without jurisdiction in granting permit for a “route” not contemplated under the Agreement. Permit for the route Raipur-Indore cannot be granted under the Agreement inasmuch as in the Agreement, in the Preamble and in Clauses 4 and 11(b)and (c), an implied embargo is contemplated against such a venture. That position, we have duly stressed in the extracts made above. Indeed, all 99 routes mentioned in Appendix A were fixed with reference to two termini. Evidently, by changing one terminus and shifting the starting point from Jaipur to Raipur, though both within Rajasthan, such permit as was not contemplated under the Agreement was granted in the instant case. We have no doubt that the terms and conditions of reciprocity
with all necessary details given in Appendix A are inviolable and arc binding on all Authorities (S. T. A: S. /R. T. As.) of the two Slates. Permit for a “modified” route is prohibited also by the Preamble and Clause 4 as in Clause 11(b) it is expressly indicated the permitted variation which shall not be treated as a “modification”. We have already indicated that reciprocity was fixed in Appendix A with reference to several other factors also, such as operation by nominees of each of the State Governments in the two States for a particular length of the route besides apportioning the number of trips and permits between the two States. In the instant case, not only one of the terminii is changed, length of operation in the respective State is also changed by modifying or “curtailing” the route approved under the Agreement, namely, Jaipur-Indore. Under the impugned permit in a single trip, respondent Chordia is allowed to run only 8 K.M.s in the State of Rajasthan while operating still on the entire remaining portion of the route in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The length of operation of the route of the “single trip” in the State of Rajasthan evidently is in violation of that fixed under the agreement as per details of Appendix A. That being the position, the provisions of Sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 11 of the Agreement being violated, the permit could not be got countersigned in the State of Madhya Pradesh in terms of Sub-clause (c) of Clause 11 of the Agreement, albeit read with Clause 4.
11. Our attention was drawn by Shri Gupta to the decision in Adarsha Travels Bus Service, AIR 1986 SC 319 which this Court had an occasion to consider in the case of Prahlad Das Gupta, 1988 Jab LJ 456 : 1958 MPLJ 652 : (AIR 1988 Madh Pra 297). This Court took the view that when a route is specified with reference to two terminii, it may be possible to fix more “routes” on the same line of travel by specifying different terminii with respect thereto on that line of travel and in that case for each such route, so evolved, it would be expedient to consider grant of separate permit. This Court had explained Apex Courts holding on definition in Section 2(28-A) of the term “route” and we
reiterate once more that their Lordships of the Apex Court had not re-written or whittled down the effect of the statutory definition in Adarsha Travels Bus Service (supra). In the instant case, there is no doubt that the grant of permit under the agreement aforesaid was contemplated with respect to the route Indore-Jaipur; and not Indore-Raipur. That being the position, even if it be assumed that the Agreement (Annexure R/l) has statutory force, as contended by Shri Gupta, the effect of the Agreement cannot be ignored and its scope cannot be enlarged to confer jurisdiction on the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, to grant a permit for a “route” not contemplated under the Agreement. We failed to read any provision in the agreement under which statutory entitlement can be said to have been conferred on any authority of any of the two contracting States to grant a permit for a portion of the approved route fixed with reference to its terminii in the Agreement. In the absence of such a provision in the agreement and in the face, rather, of express prohibition against modification of routes specifically indicated in Appendix A, to be read in the preamble as also in Sub-clauses (b) and (c) of Clause 11, we must hold that there was total want of jurisdiction in the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, in passing the impugned order (Annexure P/2).
12. Article 226(2) of the Constitution contemplates that a High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, shall have jurisdiction to issue directions, orders or writs to any Governmental authority or person notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. In the instant case, there is no doubt that the impugned order as also the impugned permit has given rise to a cause of action in the State of Madhya Pradesh partly but substantially indeed, because almost the whole of the route except 8 K.M.s lie within the State of Madhya Pradesh. Although we have held that the appellate order as also the permit issued
pursuant thereto are devoid of jurisdictional foundation and we have a constitutional duty to ensure that those are not given effect, those need not be quashed. This view we have taken considering the fact that the concerned respondents 2 and 3, State Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur and R. T. A., Kota, are not served and are not represented in this matter. However, we are also of the view that the permit lacking jurisdictional validity, could not be presented for counter-signature and that the same could not he validly countersigned by the Assistant Secretary, Stale Transport Authority, Gwalior. Accordingly, we quash the counter-signature dt. 7-4-1988 (Annexure P/9). But, we also hold and decide that the relevant impugned permit (Annexure P/5(a) shall not be valid on any portion of the route, Indore-Raipur, falling within the State of Madhya Pradesh.
13. We proceed how to deal with the other contentions of Shri Nigudkar, based on infraction of Sub-sections (1-D) and (2) of Section 68-F of the Act. For that, counsel has placed reliance on proposed or “notified” Scheme No. 70 R.M. and “approved” Scheme Nos. 70 and 44 R. M. In so far as Scheme No. 70 RM is concerned, that is dated 16-9-1987 published by the petitioner in M. P. Gazette dt. 25-9-1987 in virtue of the statutory entitlement envisaged in that regard in Sections 68C and 68-E. We have looked at that Scheme which is Annexure P/6. It relates to four inter-Statal routes of which Indore-Jaipur route via Ujjain, Agar, Kota etc. is one in respect to which respondent Chordia had applied as per Annexure P/3(a). We extract paras 3 and 4 of that scheme :
“3. The nature and extent of State Road Transport Services to be provided on the routes mentioned in Clause (2) above are specified in the schedule annexed hereto. The provision of Transport Services otherwise than under the scheme is prohibited except that (i) the vehicles of Rajasthan State nominees plying under the terms of reciprocal transport agreement between the States of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan covering the routes mentioned in Clause (2) above. (ii) the vehicles of Rajasthan State territory operators plying
on the routes in the Rajasthan State only covering portions of the routes mentioned in Clause (2) above, and (iii) the vehicles of Madhya Pradesh State territory operators plying on the routes in Madhya Pradesh only, not included in the scheme shall be allowed to ply.
4. No person other than the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ‘State Transport Undertaking’ will be permitted to provide Road Transport Service (Stage carriage or contract carriage) on the routes specified in Clause (2) above except as provided in Clause (3) above,”
Because Shri Gupta contended that Section 48-F (1-D) has to be read with Section 68-FF and not in isolation, we propose to extract the said Sub-section(1-D):
“(1-D)Save as otherwise provided in subsection (1 -A) or Sub-section (1-C) no permit shall be granted or renewed during the period intervening between the date of publication, under Section 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 : ……”
14. Be it however noted that Section 68-FF refers explicitly only to cases of Section 68-D(3). Whatever that may be, the expression “covered by such Scheme” aforequoted, according to us, would merely mean that the proposed scheme has to be read as a whole and the provisions thereof arc to be given effect fully, or in other words, the saving made as respects rights of oilier operators under the Scheme has also to be given effect. For this view, we find support from high authority. In Pandiyan Roadways AIR 1987 SC 958, cited by Shri Nigudkar, in construing Sections 68-D and 68-FF, as also Section 68-F (1-D), it was held that on publication of an approved scheme the number of services on the route notified under the Scheme is proposed to be frozen on the publication of the Scheme under Section 68-C; the operators not protected under the scheme could not operate on the notified route or even on a portion thereof.
15. In the instant case, according to Shri Gupta, respondent Chordia ought to be considered as a protected operator under Clause 3 whose case was covered by Sub-
clause(i) of Clause (c) thereof. The argument has
been stated only to be rejected. Our reasons are threefold. Firstly, it cannot be said that respondent Chordia is “plying under the terms of reciprocal agreement”. Indeed, it cannot be said that he is entitled to ply on a permit issued “under the terms” of the agreement. We have already held that the permit granted to him is wholly without jurisdiction because it is not a permit granted “under the terms of the agreement”. Secondly Counsel relied on a Bench decision of this Court in Jogendersingh 1978 Jab LJ 657 wherein the word ”ply” in the proposed scheme of that ease was construed. There, it was held that the word “plying” used in that scheme ought to be read to mean transport services which were plying on the date of publication of the scheme or even those which may be plying thereafter. We do not think if we would be justified in accepting counsel’s reliance on the decision cited as the view canvassed runs counter to Apex Court’s holding in Pandiyan Roadways (AIR 1987 SC 958) (supra). That apart, merely in that case this Court found ambiguity in the language used in that scheme as regards protected operators and took the view that the recourse may be had to external aid in construing the document and in that view of the matter, the word “plying” was construed with reference to a particular letter of the Special Secretary of the State Government written in connection with the Scheme. In the instant case, we do not read any ambiguity in the language used in the aforequoted Sub-clause (i) and, on the other hand, we are of the view that even if Shri Gupta’s contention is accepted, the word “plying” has to be understood as plying validly. Or, in other words, plying under a valid permit.
16. The position concerning Scheme No. 70 (Annexure P/7) is the same if not more advantageous to petitioners case. Under this Scheme, one of the inter-Statal route approved is Indore-Raipur via Soyat, which is the very route for which the impugned
permit has been granted to respondent Chordia, Clause 4 of the Scheme is in the same terms as Clause 4 aforequoted, of Scheme No. 70 RM. However, we have also to read more carefully Clause 3 of this scheme because as respects this scheme, approved under Section 68-D(3), Shri Gupta’s argument based on Section 68-FF, does apply in terms. Counsel may be right in contending that under Section 68-FF, “any permit” may be granted, albeit to a private operator as well, if that can be done “in accordance with the provisions of the scheme” in question. However, on facts, Sub-clause (i) of Clause 3 of the Scheme on which Shri Gupta has relied for protection is i n the same language as of the aforequoted Sub-clause (i) of Clause 3 of Scheme 70 RM. Therefore, for same reasons enumerated above, applicable to the case of Scheme 70 RM, we have to hold that the respondent is not a protected operator. Additionally, the position here is made more clear as to meaning of the word “ply”. In this case, Clause 3 of the Scheme uses the last two words “as before” to make the position clear that the word “plying” has to mean clearly and categorically that protection under that clause was limited to the cases of operators actually plying on the date of publication of the scheme. Clause 3, read as a whole, clearly indicates that operators protected will be those as could be “allowed to ply as before”. Thus, while Scheme 70 RM affects the said respondent’s entitlement because of the provisions of Section 68-F(1-D) which debars grant of permit, in the case of Scheme No. 70, a similar bar is envisaged not only under Section 68-FF, but also under Sub-section (2) of Section 68-F. Indeed, Clause (a) of Sub-section 68-F (2) mandates categorically that to give effect to the “approved scheme in respect of the notified area or notified route”, the R. T. A. has to “refuse to entertain any application for the grant or renewal of any permit” in relation thereto.
17. Unlike the other two Schemes, Scheme No. 44 RM (Annexure P/8) is an inter-State Scheme but we do not think on that account the impugned permit can be treated differently in respect thereof. That a Scheme proposed under Section 68-C and approved under Section 68-D can be in respect of both inter
and intra-State route is clearly indicated in those provisions. A State Transport Undertaking anywhere in this country can propose to operate transport service on “any area or route or portion thereof” after following the procedure prescribed Sections 68-C and 68-D. Indeed, the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 68-D makes the position clear that when a Scheme for operation on any route by any State Transport Undertaking is proposed and approved with or without modification by the State Government concerned, if that Scheme “relates to any inter-Stale route”, it shall be necessary to obtain “previous approval of the Central Government” in respect of that Scheme. We have looked at Annexure P/8 which shows that Scheme No. 44 RM was published in M. P. Gazette on 30-3-1970. It was “approved” by the State Government on 23-3-1970, but it contemplated that with effect from 15-5-1979 stage carriage service on, among others, Indore-Soyat route, would be provided exclusively by the Slate Road Transport Service. According to paras 4 and 5 of the Scheme, the said route was meant for exclusive operation by the petitioner. That being the factual position, the impugned permit is afflicted in relation to this Scheme as well by operation of Sections 68(2) and 68-FF. The Scheme affects the entitlement purportedly created under the impugned permit for a portion of the route created thereunder, namely, for the portion Indore-Soyal.
18. In the course of his argument, Shri J. P. Gupta also drew our attention to two unreported judgments, one of the Apex Court and the other of this Court. In disposing of W.P. No. 664/86 on 4-8-1986 their Lordships of the Supreme Court had quashed a “proposed” scheme, published under Section 68-C in 1972 as respects a route Indore-Jhalawar Road. We have no doubt at all that the scheme quashed is a different scheme and that Scheme Nos. 70, 70 RM relied on by Shri Nigudkar are not affected by their Lordships’ order. In so far as the order passed at the Main Seat by this Court on 18-12-1987 in M.P. No. 3614/87 is concerned, suffice it to say that grant of a
temporary permit on an inter-Statal route being challenged in that case, the ratio of that decision can have no bearing on the controversy raised in this petition with respect to the non-temporary permit for five years being granted to respondent Chordia.
19. For all the foregoing reasons, the petition must succeed and it is accordingly allowed. We hold and declare void the impugned order (Annexure P/2| passed by respondent 2 in so far as it concerns the operation of the route in question lying within this State. The impugned permit (Annexure P/5(a)) issued by respondent 3 being void and inoperative pari passu shall not be given effect in so far as it concerns the operation of the route in question lying in this State. The counter-signature (Annexure P/9) appended, to the impugned permit by respondent 4 is quashed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.