Saved operator permits cannot be expanded by extra trips or vehicles unless the reciprocal agreement expressly allows it.

A saved operator under the Kolar Pocket Scheme or Bellary Pocket Scheme may continue the existing service, but the permit cannot be varied to increase trips or vehicles unless the governing reciprocal inter-State agreement expressly authorises that enlargement. The approved scheme and saving clause preserve only the operation already protected; they do not permit expansion beyond the limits of the nationalised arrangement. The later Supreme Court ruling was treated as controlling and as resolving earlier conflicting views, confirming that an enlarged permit on a notified route is impermissible without specific agreement.

---

---

Issues: Whether variation of the conditions of a stage carriage permit held by a saved operator under the Kolar Pocket Scheme or Bellary Pocket Scheme can be granted by increasing the number of trips or vehicles.

Analysis: The answer turned on the scope of the approved scheme, the saving clause, and the effect of the later Supreme Court ruling. The scheme permitted continued operation only within the limits preserved by the reciprocal inter-State arrangement. A saved operator could continue the existing service, but the increase of trips or vehicles on a notified route would amount to enlarging the permit beyond what the scheme and agreement authorised. The later Supreme Court decision was treated as settling the controversy and as controlling over earlier inconsistent views.

Conclusion: Variation by increasing trips or vehicles is not permissible unless the reciprocal agreement between the States specifically permits it. The answer is against the saved operator and in favour of the respondent authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A saved operator under a nationalised inter-State scheme cannot obtain an enlarged permit by increasing trips or vehicles unless the governing reciprocal agreement expressly authorises such variation.

---