1. Dispute regarding cancellation of inter-State stage carriage permits due to overlap with routes notified under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1993 Supreme(SC) 1170
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T. V. NATARAJ
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Decided on : December 14, 1993
Important Points
Under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, a published scheme excluding private operators from a notified route also excludes inter-State operators unless the scheme provides express authorization for them to operate on that route.
Subject
Transport Law - Motor Vehicles Act
Act Referred
Headnote
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – Section 68-C – Route Exclusion – Whether notification of a route under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 excluding completely or partially private operators from plying on the notified route results in excluding the operators of inter-State route as well is the question of law that arises for consideration in these appeals. – Held, Whether a scheme was for total or partial exclusion depended on interpretation of the scheme itself. According to him, a reading of the scheme indicated that since operators of inter-State route are not excluded from the scheme, the view taken by the High court or the Transport Authority cannot be upheld. – The submission cannot be accepted in view of overruling of the earlier decision of this court in Mysore State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal by the Constitution bench. – Even though the bench in Mysore State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mysore Revenue Appellate tribunal did not consider it necessary to decide if publication of scheme precludes an inter-state operator from plying on notified portion of intra-State route as the bench was satisfied that the scheme did not exclude an inter-State operator from plying but in view of the decision in Adarsh Travels case and in absence of express authorisation in the scheme, the controversy is no more res Integra. – Appeals Dismissed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a notification excluding private operators from a route under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, extends to exclude inter-State operators. (Para 1 , 5 )
3. The court traced the evolution of jurisprudence, concluding that a published scheme prohibits private operators from using any part of a notified route without express authorization. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
4. Private operators, including inter-State operators, are excluded from operating on any portion of a notified route unless expressly authorized by the published scheme. (Para 4 )
5. Appeals dismissed. (Para 6 )
6. Does a notification under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, excluding private operators from a route, also apply to inter-State operators?
Yes. Once a scheme is published in relation to any area or route, no person other than the State Transport Undertaking may operate on that notified route unless expressly authorized by the terms of the scheme itself. (Para 4 )
7. Is the absence of a specific mention of inter-State operators in a notification scheme sufficient to allow them to ply on a notified route?
No. Express authorization within the scheme is required to permit a private inter-State operator to ply on a notified intra-State route; mere omission from the list of excluded operators is insufficient. (Para 4 , 5 )
8. Can a private operator use a portion of a notified route if their permit only partially overlaps with the notified area?
No. No private operator can operate their vehicle on any part or portion of a notified area or notified route unless they are authorized to do so by the terms of the scheme. (Para 4 )
Judgment
R. M. SAHAI
( 1 ). Whether notification of a route under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act) excluding completely or partially private operators from plying on the notified route results in excluding the operators of inter-State route as well is the question of law that arises for consideration in these appeals.
( 2 ). Although the controversy appears to have been settled long ago yet the circumstances in which the dispute has been continuing till now and has reached this court may be narrated. The appellants are permit holders of stage carriages operating on inter-State route having starting point at one or the other place in State of Kamataka and termini in the State of Tamil Nadu. Some of them are operating on the intra-State route since before the route was notified by what has come to be known as anekal Pocket Scheme of 1959. But their plying was not affected as the scheme was treated as ofpartial exclusion or not applicable to inter-State route by this court. Now they are aggrieved by cancellation of their permits as it overlaps the route notified by publication of scheme in 1959 under Section 68-C of the Act. The validity of this scheme was upheld by this court in H. C. Narayanappa v. State of Mysore. But in view of the observations made to the following effect:
"but a scheme under Section 68-C must be one in relation to an area or any route or portion thereof wherein the transport service is to be undertaken by the State transport undertaking to the exclusion, either complete or partial, of other operators. Column I of the approved scheme undoubtedly describes the area in relation to which the scheme is approved, but by the designation of the area in the scheme, an intention to exclude either wholly or partially the operators of stage carriages from that area is not evinced either expressly or by implication. "the Regional Transport Authority modified the inter-State permits and imposed a condition to the following effect:
"as the route for which the permit is held overlaps the route notified by the government of Mysore in its Notification No. HD 39-EMB-59 dated 15/04/1959 no passenger from any point situated in the notified route other than those desirous of alighting or boarding at any point beyond Hoskote shall be carried in the vehicle or vehicles covered by such permits. "
( 3 ). In 1963, it is claimed that the State Transport Authorities of Karnataka and Madras, having regard to the interest of the travelling public, after investigating the necessity for grant of permits, granted stage carriages through the Anekal Pocket Scheme with the same restrictions as were imposed earlier and are known as corridor restrictions. The grant of permit was objected to by the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation insofar as it overlapped notified routes. The dispute ultimately reached this court and question arose whether a permit could be granted to an inter-State transport operator for the whole of the route despite the fact that a part of the route overlapped a part of notified intra-State route. In Mysore State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mysore Revenue Appellate tribunal this court did not enter into the question whether the State Transport Undertaking was empowered to prohibit the use of any portion of a route by inter-State operators as it was of opinion that even if it was shown that State Transport Undertaking could totally exclude inter-State operators from using any part of a notified route, it was a question of interpretation of the scheme framed under Section 68-C of the Act whether it intended to exclude private operators from operating on the route totally or partially. The bench thereafter, on an examination of the scheme, came to the conclusion that it excluded only the operators named therein. The bench held that the inter-state operators were not meant to be denied the use of the overlappingportions of routes covered by the scheme as their names were not mentioned as required by
