Summarize the following court judgment. vil Appeal Nos. 93794 1 of 1980. From the JUdgment and Order dated 22.2.1980 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. Nos. 934/78	 602/77	 110/78 and 111/78 and dated 29.2.1980 in C.R.P. No. 601 of 1977. A.V. Rangam for the Appellant. section Srinivasan for the RespOndents. The following Order of the Court was delivered: These are five Civil Appeals by Special Leave against identical orders of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. In relation to Civil Appeal No. 937 of 1980 the Regional Transport Authority	 out of two permits	 granted one permit on the route Salem to Poolambadi to the appellant State Transport Undertaking and the other to the first respondent	 Safe Service Ltd. In Civil Appeal No. 938 of 1980 there was only one permit for the route Salem to Pallipatti which was granted to the State Transport Undertaking. 1n other words	 it was denied to the Second respondent	 R.P. David. In Civil Appeal No. 939 of 1980	 on the route Salem to Poolambadi	 out of two permits	 one permit was granted to the State Transport Undertaking and the other to another private operator	 Suganeswara Motor Service denying the permit to R.P. David respondent herein. In Civil Appeal No. 940 of 1980	 on the route Salem to Erode	 the objection of the State Transport Undertaking on the renewal sought by Parsu raman Pillai respondent was sustained and the permit was granted to the State Transport Undertaking	 leaving the private operator aggrieved. In Civil Appeal No. 94 1 of 1980	 on the route Salem to Tiruchangode	 the renewal appli cation of K. Ramaswamy respondent operator was declined on objection by the State Transport Undertaking	 who in turn	 on its application	 was granted the permit leaving the private operator K. Ramaswamy respondent aggrieved. All the aggrieved parties preferred appeals before the State Trans port Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal identically in all these Cases took the view that since a draft scheme under Section 68C of the had been pub lished by the ' State Government and was under 711 consideration at the time when the matter was pending in appeal	 sub section 1 D of Section 68 F of the Act stood in the way for any relief 'being granted to the private opera tors and thus dismissed the appeals. That provision forbids permits being granted or renewed during the period interven ing between the date of publication of any draft scheme under Section 68 C of the Act	 and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme	 in favour of any person	 or for any class of road transport service	 in relation to an area	 or route	 or portion thereof	 covered by such scheme. However	 the proviso thereto permits that where the period of operation of a permit in relation to any area	 route or portion thereof specified in the 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 Section 68 D of the Act. As is evident	 the Appellate Authority applied sub section(1 D) of Section 68F to all the five cases and not the proviso. The High Court on revision preferred by the private operators upset the orders of the Appellate Authori ty directing the Regional Transport Authority to re consider the matter on merit. While doing so it relied on a judgment of the Madras High Court in K.A. Natarajan vs M. Naina Mo hammed & Anr.	 AIR 1978 Madras 280 to the effect that appeal before the Appellate Authority was maintainable even though a draft scheme within the terms of Section 68C of the Act had appeared on the scene. The State Transport Undertaking being aggrieved is before us by Special Leave. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. So far as Civil Appeal Nos. 937 939/80 are concerned	 these are cases of non grant of permits to the aggrieved private operators. To their cases sub section (D) of Section 68F of the Act was clearly attracted. No permit could be granted on their asking in the presence of the draft scheme. And when none could be granted the exercise of consideration of the claim of the aggrieved. private operators on merit	 was itself a futility. When the law forbade the grant of a permit in the aforesaid duration	 merits of grant stood nowhere. In this view of the matter	 we are inclined to take the view that the High Court was in error in accepting the related revi sion petitions of the private operators and remitting their cases to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration on merits. And as a consequence it was further in error in ordering that till such orders were passed by the Appellate Authority	 both the State Transport Under 712 taking and private operators could be allowed to run	 in view of the facts which glare out on the record. So far as Civil Appeal Nos. 940 941 of 1980 are con cerned	 the respective private operators were functioning and had sought renewal of their existing permits on the routes in question and	 on denial of the same	 and corre sponding grant thereof to the State Transport Undertaking	 grievance arose to those private operators to take the matter in appeal. Theirs were cases which could perhaps fall within the proviso to sub section (1 D) to Section 68F of the Act. Their permits were capable of being renewed for a limited period provided they had expired after the publica tion of the draft scheme under Section 68C of the Act. The controverted plea of the State Undertaking however is cate goric that the renewal application was rejected on 30th August	 1974 in one case and on 19th October	 1974 in the other	 and on such rejection both the permits were granted to the State Transport Undertaking	 and when the matter was in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal	 the draft scheme was	 much later	 published on 4.6.1976. Mr. section Srinivasan	 learned counsel appearing for the private operators in Civil Appeal NOs. 940 941 of 1980 contends that when an appeal was taken to the Appellate Authority	 the provisions of subsection (1 A) of Section 134 of the Act were invoked and orders were obtained	 notwith standing the expiration of the term of the permit	 so as to continue the permit to be valid until the appeals before the Appellate Authority were disposed of. On that basis it is contended that the proviso to sub section (1 D) of Section 68F of the Act comes to his rescue	 on the strength of orders in terms of sub section (1 A) of Section 134 of the Act	 as valid permits were continuing and were capable of being renewed for a limited period	 so as to cease being effective on the publication of the final scheme under sub section (3) of Section 68D of.the Act. It may not require examining the contention because it is fractionally factual. The necessary factual data has not been placed before us in the form of a counter or the suggestive orders as such. We are thus left in the dark. Still	 lest we cause any injus tice to Mr. section Srinivasan 's clients	 we are goaded to take the view that even though these two appeals shall also meet the same fate as that of Civil Appeal Nos. 937 939 of 1980 they shall remain subjected to an alternate that in the event of orders under sub section (1 A) of Section 134 being existent	 the Appellate Authority shall examine the question and pass such orders in relation to the appeals of these private operators in accordance with law; but in case there were no such 713 orders earlier	 the view of the Appellate Authority dismiss ing the appeals shall stand affirm	ed. In view of what has been said above	 we allow Civil Appeal Nos. 937 939 of 1980 unqualifedly and Civil Appeal Nos. 940 941 of 1980 qualifiedly in the terms above stated. Parties shall bear their own costs in all these appeals. V.P.R. Appeals al lowed.

In Civil Appeal No. 937 of 1980 the Regional Transport Authority	 out of two permits	 Wanted one permit an the route Salem to Poolambadi to the appellant State Transport Undertaking and tie other to the first respondent. In Civil Appeal No. 938 of 1980 them was only one permit for the route Salem to Pallipatti	 which was Wanted to the State Transport Undertaking	 denying the second respondent. In Civil Appeal No. 939 of 1980	 on the route Salem to Poolambadi	 ant of two permits	 one permit was granted to the State Transport Undertaking and the other to another private operator	 denying the permit to the respondent therein. In Civil Appeal No. 940 of 1980	 on the route Salem to Erode	 the objection of the State Transport Undertaking on the renewal sought by the respondent was sustained and the permit was granted to the State Transport Undertaking. In Civil Appeal No. 941 of 1980	 an the route Salem to Tiruchangode	 the renewal application of the respondent was declined on objection by the State Transport Undertaking	 who in turn	 an its cation	 was granted the permit. All the aggrieved parties preferred appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal	 which dismissed the appeals	 holding that since a draft scheme under Section 68C of the had been published by the State Government and was under consideration at the time when the matter was pending in appeal	 subsection (1 D) of Section 68 F of the Act stood in the way for any relief being granted to the private operators. 709 The High. Court allowing the revision preferred by the private operators	 upset the orders of the Appellate Author ity	 directing the Regional Transport Authority to re con sider the matters on merit against which the State Transport Undertaking approached this Court by Special Leave. The appellants the private operators in C.A. Nos. 940 941 of 1980 contendeed that Section 68(F)(1 D)	 proviso of the was applicable to their cases on the strength of orders in terms of Section 134(1 A)	 as valid permits were continuing and were capable of being renewed for a limited period	 so as to cease being effective on the publication of the final scheme under .section 68D(3). Allowing C.A. Nos. 937 939 of 1980 unqualifiedly and C.A. Nos. 940 941 of 1980 qualifiedly	 this Court	 HELD 1. To the cases of non grant of permits to the ag grieved private operates	 sub section (1 D) of Section 68F of the Act was clearly attracted .No permit could be granted on their asking in the presence of the draft scheme. And when none could be granted the exercise of consideration of the claim of the private operators on merit	 was itself a futlifty. When the law forbade the grant of a permit	 merits of grant stood nowhere. [711F G] 2. The private operators in C.A. Nos. 940 941 of 1980 were functioning and had sought renewal of their existing permits on the routes in question and	 on denial of the same	 and corresponding grant thereof to the State Transport Undertaking	 grievance arose to those private operators to take the matter in appeal. Their cases fail within the proviso to sub section (1 D) to Section 68F of the Act. Their permits were capaable of being renewed for a limited period provided they had exlpired after the publication of the draft scheme under Section 68C of the Act	 [712B C] 3. Even though the two appeals in C.A. Nos. 940 941 of 1980 shall also meet the same fate as that of C.A. Nos. 937 939 of 1980	 they shall remain subjected to an alternate that in the event of orders under sub section (1 A) of Section 134 being existent the Appellate Authority shah examine the question and pass such orders in relation to the appeals of these private operators in accordance with law; but in case there were no such orders earlier	 the view of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeals shall stand affirmed. [712G 713A] 710 K.A. Natarajan vs M. Naina Mohammed & Ant.	 AIR 1978 Madras 28O	 referred to.