Judgement

JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. :- The Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, the appellant (hereinafter called the Corporation) operates on the notified route under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Hereinafter referred to as the Act -- between Hiriyur and V. V. Sagar, It objected to the renewal of a permit to the 3rd respondent C. Abdul Rahim for the route Hiriyur to Chitradurga and back vis V. V. Sagar, Hosadurga and Janakal on the ground that the renewal will authorise an overlapping over three miles on the notified route. Both the Regional Transport Authority, Chitradurga and the Regional Trnasport Authority, Bangalore, negatived the objection. It may be mentioned that the ground upon which the appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the order of renewal passed by the Regional Transport. Authority was that in some other cases the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal had held that the integrity of a scheme is not imparied if the distance of the overlapping portion is about five miles and if a condition not to pick up or set down passengers on the notified route is attache. On this reasoning the Tribunal thought there were no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appellant then filed a writ petition in what is now the Karnataka High Court but it was dismissed by a Division Bench in Limine. This appeal is by special leave against that dismissed order.

2. It appears that the passenger transport services on the routes appearing at Serial Nos. 1 to 22, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 53 of the statement appended to the scheme approved under Section 68-D (2) of the Act, subject to the modification set out in the notification dated June 7, 1960, included "services between any two places therein", and the transport services were to be run and operated by the State Transport undertaking to the complete exclusion of other operators . The notification then sets out the various details of the said approved scheme known as the Bangalore Scheme. The question at issue is whether the scheme prohibits overlaping of the route or routes of private operators on a part or whole of the notified route, if the route or routes overlap as aforesaid, then no permit can be granted to those private operators over the notified routes which prohibit them to operate over those routes. This proposition was laid down in several decisions of this Court to which reference will be made hereafter.

3. In a recent judgment of this Court by one of us (Beg, J. and Chandrachud, J., concurring with him) in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal Civil Appeals Nos. 1755-1756 of 1969, D/- 17-5-1974 (SC) this court has taken a contrary view. No doubt this case was one rendered in respect of inter-State routes, while the instant case is one relating to intra-State routes. There, however, seems to be no difference in the principal applicable to both the cases. The principal governing intra-State routes has been extended to inter-State routes vide Abdul Khader saheb v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, (1973) 2 SCR 925 As the recent decision to which reference has been made seems to take a contrary view to that taken by even larger Benches of this Court, we find it necessary to re-examine the question posed before us.

4. Under Section 68-C of the Act where a State Transport Undertaking is of opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services in general or any particular class of such services in relation to any area or routes or portion thereof should be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise, the State Transport Undertaking may prepare a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the service proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered etc. The scheme so f