Exclusive route schemes bar overlapping private permits by operation of law, even without express cancellation clauses.

An approved Chapter IV-A scheme reserving a notified route or portion exclusively for the State Transport Undertaking excludes overlapping private stage carriage permits by operation of law. Section 68-F(2) requires the transport authority to refuse renewal and to cancel or curtail existing permits to the extent needed to give effect to the exclusive scheme, even if the scheme does not contain an express clause directing cancellation or modification. Corridor restrictions do not preserve private operation on the notified portion, because passenger carriage for hire on that stretch still conflicts with the scheme's exclusivity. A scheme providing only partial exclusion stands on a different footing, but the text states that was not the position here.

---

---

Issues: Whether, where an approved scheme under Chapter IV-A provides for exclusive operation by the State Transport Undertaking on a notified route or portion thereof, private stage carriage permits on an overlapping route can be renewed with corridor restrictions without any express provision in the scheme cancelling or modifying the existing permits.

Analysis: Section 68-C authorises a scheme for complete or partial exclusion of private operators, and Section 68-F(2) requires the Regional Transport Authority to give effect to an approved exclusive scheme by rejecting renewal applications and cancelling or curtailing existing permits to the extent necessary. Where the scheme plainly reserves the route or part of it exclusively for the State Transport Undertaking, the prohibition operates by force of the statute itself and does not depend on an express recital in the scheme directing cancellation or modification of permits. Corridor restrictions do not save the permit holder, because permitting plying over the notified portion still amounts to carriage of passengers for hire on that portion and undermines the exclusivity of the scheme. A scheme permitting only partial exclusion stands on a different footing, but that was not the nature of the schemes in question.

Conclusion: The scheme's exclusive character barred renewal of the respondents' permits over the overlapping notified portions, and no specific clause in the scheme was necessary for cancellation or modification of the existing permits.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the private operators and in favour of the Corporation, affirming that exclusive notified schemes displace overlapping private permits by operation of law.

Ratio Decidendi: When an approved scheme under Chapter IV-A provides exclusive operation of a notified route or portion thereof by the State Transport Undertaking, Section 68-F(2) automatically requires refusal, cancellation, or curtailment of overlapping private permits, even without an express scheme clause to that effect.

---