Summarize the following court judgment. l Appeal Nos. 1349 1350/76. Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated the 12th October 1976 of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 5881 and 5884 of 1975. V.P. Raman	 Addl. Sol	 General of lndia	 (Mrs.) N. G	 Krishna Iyengar	 Shri Narain	 K.J. ' John	 D.N. Mishra for the Appellant. F.S. Nariman	 M. N. Rangachari	 A.R. Ramanathan	 Jayaraman	M.M.L. Srivastava and A.T.M. Sarapath for Respond ent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER	 J. The short 	question	 involving a point of construction of section 68 F(1D)	 has been raised by the Additional Solicitor General in these appeals by Special Leave. The respondent was a stage carriage operator whose two permits 	were to expire in January and. March 1976. In the usual course and in compliance with section 58. of the (for short	 'The Act ') he applied for renewal more than 120 days ahead but at the time of the actual date of expiry of the permits a draft scheme under part IV A had been published. This fulfilled the require ments of the proviso to section 68 F(1D) and entitled the appel lant to renewal for the limited period stated in the said proviso. But the State withdrew the draft scheme for some technical reasons and republished it in July 1975	 after the appellant 's permit had expired. Applying the prohibition contained in section 68 F(1D) the Regional Transport Authority (for short the 'R.T.A. ') rejected the prayer for renewal. However	 the High Court set aside that order and directed the grant of renewal	 on a certain view of the section which the Additional Solicitor General contends goes beyond the limits of the plain words used. The aggrieved State ap peals. While we are satisfied that on the peculiar facts. of this case the respondent can sustain the permits the legal position canvassed by the appellant appears to be correct. At the time the respondent 's permit expired a draft scheme had already been published but the approved scheme had not been published. Any permit holder whose permit expires during this spell is eligible for a renewal as specified in the proviso. The fact that the draft scheme was later withdrawn cannot affect the right to a renewal. We	 therefore	 hold that the renewal of permit shall remain to the extent contemplated in the proviso to section 68 F(1D). Before we consider the legal question we may read section 68 F(1D). "(1D) Save as otherwise provided in sub sectiOn (1A) or sub section (1G)	 no permit shall be granted or renewed during the period intervening between the date of publication	 under Section 68 (2 of any scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme	 in favour of 391 any person for any class or road transport service in relation to an area or route or portion thereof covered by such scheme. Provided that where the period of opera tion of a permit in relation to any area	 route	 or portion thereof specified in a scheme published under Section 68 C expires after such publication	 such permit may be renewed for a limited period	 but the permit so renewed shall cease to be effective on the publication of the scheme under sub section (3) of Seetion 68 D." Three propositions plainly emerge. No permit or renewal	 except to the extent expressly saved by section 68 F(ID)	 can be granted by the R.T.A. during the period between the date of publication of any scheme and the date of publication of the approved scheme. (2) If a permit expires after the publication of any draft scheme such permit is eligible for renewal for a limited period as set out in the proviso. This special provision cannot be stretched	 on the ground of possible anomalies or unjust consequences	 to cover permits expiring even before the publication of the draft scheme. Where the language is plain	 interpretation cannot take the shape of addition or interstitial legislation. (3) A rider to proposition No. 2 has to be added. If a permit holder whose permit is about to expire	 diligently does	 in the normal course	 all that he need and all that he can	 that is to say	 apply for renewal before 120 days	 in the manner laid down in section 58 of the Act	 he sets in motion the legal machinery for the grant of renewal which must ordinarily culminate. in renewal within 120 days. The fact that a scheme is published before the actual grant of renewal will not intercept or extinguish the process of law set in motion by the applica tion for renewal. In such cases the R.T.A. has to act promptly and if the application for renewal is in conformity with the law it has to consider it and grant or reject according to merit. If	 for reasons beyond the control of the applicant	 the renewal process gets delayed or pro longed he cannot be penalised. Renewal is a legal process	 not the final act. Save in this category of cases	 all other permits which have expired before the draft scheme is published	 suffer the ban of section 68 F(1D). However	 no permit can ensure beyond the time of the publication of the approved scheme. This saves cases of bona fide applications for renewal of permits	 not calculated to thwart a scheme	 and helps the travelling public during the interregnum when the scheme is under scrutiny. The wider proposition accept ed by the High Court that all permits which have expired before the draft scheme is published can be renewal does not appear to be correct and does not have our approval. With this declaration of the law we dismiss the appeals. No order as to costs. P.H.P. Appeals dismissed.

The respondent was Stage Carriage Operator whose two permits were to expire in January and March 1976. In the usual course and in compliance with section 58 of the 	 he applied for renewal more than 120 days ahead but at the time of the actual date of expiry of the permits a draft scheme under A had been pub lished. The State withdrew the draft scheme under A for some technical reasons and republished in July 1975	 after the appellants ' permits had expired. Section 68F(1D) provides that no permit shall be granted or renewal during the period intervening between the date of publication under section 68C of any scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme. The proviso to the said sec tion provides that if a permit expires after the publication of the scheme such permit may be renewed for a limited period but the renewed permit shall cease to be effective on the publication of the scheme under section 68D(3). Applying the prohibition contained in section 68F(1D) the Regional Transport Authority rejected the prayer for renewal. The High Court set aside that order directed the grant of the renewal. Dismissing the appeals	 HELD: 1. At the time the respondents ' permit expired a draft scheme had already been published but the approved scheme had not been	 published. Any permit holder whose permit expires during this spell is eligible for a renewal as specified in the proviso. The fact that the draft scheme was later withdrawn ca.not affect the rights to a renewal. Renewal of the permit however would be to the extent contem plated by section 68F(1D). [390G H] 2. (a) No permit or renewal except to the extent ex pressly saved by section 68F(1D) can be granted by the Regional Transport Authority during the period between the date of publication of any scheme and the date of publi cation of the approved scheme. [391C] (b) If a permit expires after the publication of any draft scheme such permit is eligible for renewal for a limited period as set out in the proviso. The special provi sion contained in that proviso cannot be stretched on the ground of possible anomalies or unjust consequences to cover permits expiring even before the publication of the draft scheme. Where language is plain the interpretation cannot take the shape of addition or interstitial legislation. [391C D] 3. If a permit holder whose permit is about to expire diligently does in the normal course	 all that he needs and all that he can	 that is to say	 if he sets in motion the legal machinery for the grant of renewal as laid down in section 58	 the fact that a scheme is published before the actual grant of renewal will not intercept or extinguish the process of law set in motion by the application for renewal. If for reasons beyond the control of the applicant the renewal process gets delayed or prolonged he. cannot be penalised. Renewal is a legal process and not the final act. Save in this category of cases all other permits which have expired before the draft scheme is published	 suffer the ban of section 68F(1D). However	 no permit can ensure beyond the time of the publication of the approved scheme. [391D F] 390