A private operator cannot ply a vehicle over a part of the route that overlaps with a nationalized route, even with corridor restrictions.

( 1 ) KARNATAKA State Road Transport Corporation, the appellant herein, had challenged the correctness and validity of the order passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, affirming the order made by the Regional Transport Authority, granting renewal of the Stage Carriage Permit in respect of certain route from Tumkur to Bangalore and back. The consistent stand of the appellant has been that a portion of the route measuring about 8 K. Ms. from Nelamangala to Begur Cross overlaps the notified route under the Bangalore Scheme and, as such, the renewal is illegal. The Authorities below as well as the learned Single Judge rejected the appellant's contention on the ground that since the contesting respondent had been operating the route for the past 29 years under the original permit and renewal thereof from time to time, and no attempt having been made by the appellant to question such renewal is a conduct which would disentitle it to object to the renewal at this stage.

( 2 ) IT is well settled that where a route is nationalised, a private operator with a permit to ply a stage carriage permit over another route but which has a common overlapping sector with the nationalised route, cannot ply his vehicle over that part of the overlapping common Sector, even if with corridor restrictions that is, he does not pick up or drop passengers on the overlapping part of the route vide AIR 1986 SC 319. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent also does not dispute this position of law. In the instant case, it is not seriously disputed that the portion of 8 K. Ms. route between Nelamangala and Begur Cross constitutes part of the notified route under the Bangalore Scheme and that respondent 3 has been operating on that route throughout under the renewed permits. Having regard to the admitted state of affairs, and in the circumstances, it cannot be disputed that the permit renewed in favour of the operator (3rd respondent) in so far as it overlaps the said portion of the nationalised route is prima facie irregular and cannot be sustained. The conduct of the appellant in acquiescing in the renewal of the permits over a long period, as observed by the Authorities and the learned Single Judge, cannot create or constitute an estoppel from enforcing his rights under the Scheme and from objecting against the renewal of the permit in view of the subsistance of a valid scheme. In fact, the object of the process of renewal, inter alia, appears to be for the authority to consider whether in the circumstances existing as on the date of application such renewal can be validly granted to the operator. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the learned Judge appears to be erroneous.

( 3 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. The resolution of the Regional Transport Authority is hereby quashed. Consequently, the orders passed by the Appellate Authority are set aside. The order passed by the Regional Transport Authority renewing the permit as per Annexure-A is also set aside.

( 4 ) BEFORE parting with this appeal, it appears to be just and proper to allow respondent-3 to make an application to the appropriate authority for variation of the route in the permit by deleting and/or deviating the overlapping portion of the route. If such an application is made within 15 days from this date, the Regional Transport Authority shall consider and dispose of that application within a period of four weeks thereafter. During this period of six weeks, respondent-3 shall be entitled to continue to operate his service on the existing route.

( 5 ) SRI H. G. Ramesh, learned Government Advocate, is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks. Appeal allowed.