IMPORTANT POINT
Once a scheme (under Chapter IV-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 since repealed) is for total exclusion prohibiting private operators from plying stage carriage on a whole or part of a notified route, no permit can be granted on the notified route or portion thereof.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Ch. IV A-Notified route under-Settled law no permit can be granted on the notified route or portion thereof to private operators-Exception sought to be made by Full Bench of Karnataka High Court distinguishing overlapping and intersection -In case of intersection of notified route it is permissible to grant permit on the route to private operators-Whether correct? (No)-Appeals allowed-Case law discussed.
       Held : In our opinion there is a clear and obvious distinction between an overlapping and an intersection for purposes of Chapter IVA of the repealed Act. In the case of an overlapping a stage carriage is to ply on the same line of travel on a portion of a notified route and it is immaterial whether it is a small distance of four or five kilometers falling within the limits of a village or town. Whereas in the case of an intersection a non-notified route only cuts across a notified route for onward journey. It is only to enable a private operator plying on a non-notified route to a non-notified route to cut across a notified route. The exceptions sought to be made by Full Bench in the form of municipal limit or village limit is totally erroneous and that the same defeats the very object behind the scheme which is for total exclusion of private operation. The consistent view of this Court has through out been that the scheme is a law and the same has to be preserved and protected in public interest. Any other view taken contrary to the said view would amount to violating the integrity of an approved scheme under Section 68D of the Repealed Act. Any slight deviation in the scheme may frustrate the entire scheme. (Para 24)
       Held, therefore : The view taken by the full bench that where traversing on a notified route is necessary to continue journey on a non-notified route could be regarded as an intersection is an erroneous view of law. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to enforce rule of law and not pass order or direction which is contrary to what has been injuncted by law. (Para 27)
       For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the view taken by the High Court was contrary to the law which stood settled by this Court in Adarsh Travels case and still holds the field and, therefore, it deserves to be set aside. (Para 28)
       Held finally : For the aforesaid reasons, the judgments and order including State Transport Appellate Tribunal under appeal are set aside. The matters are sent back to the Learned Single Judge of the High Court to decide the matters within three months of production of certified copy of this judgment in the light of what has been stated above. The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Para 30)

JUDGMENT

V. N. Khare, J.-In this group of appeals, the question that falls for our consideration is "whether small portion or portions falling within the limits of towns or villages on a notified route under Chapter IVA of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, since repealed (hereinafter referred to as the Repealed Act ), are to be treated as a route overlapping or intersection"?

2. Learned counsel for the parties have addressed arguments only in Civil Appeal No. 1341/90 which substantially arises out of the judgment of the Full Bench of Karnataka High Court rendered in Writ Appeal No. 403/1988. Learned counsel for the parties jointly prayed to examine the correctness of the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench and the decision in Civil Appeal No.1341/1990 would govern the fate of other cases. We accordingly notice the facts which have given rise to Civil Appeal No.1341/1990.

3. As far back in the year 1966, the then Mysore State Transport Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as the Undertaking) framed a scheme under Section 68-C of the Repealed Act known as Kolar Pocket Scheme (in short the Scheme ), for exclusive plying of the vehicle by the Undertaking on the routes falling within the Scheme. The erstwhile Mysore government, after having considered the Scheme as proposed, and the representations filed against the said Scheme, approved the Scheme under Section 68D of the Repealed Act and the said approved Scheme was published in Government Gazette dated January 10, 1968. The Scheme provided that the State Transport Undertaking shall operate services on all the routes to the complete exclusion of other private operators except that the existing permit holders on the inter-State route may continue to operate on such inter-State route, subject to conditions that their permits shall be rendered ineffective for the overlapping portions of the notified routes and that the existing operators whose permits overlap the notified portions between Bagepalli to Chelur and Pathpatya Cross only may continue to operate on such routes subject to conditions that their permits would be rendered ineffective for the overlapping portions. However, in the years 1984-85, the Regional Transport Authority, Kolar invited applications under Section 57(2) of the Repealed Act for grant of stage carriage permit on route known as Kanumanahally to Bagarpet. Respondent No. 1 herein, in response to the said invitation submitted an application for grant of stage carriage permit on the said route. The appellant herein - the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, filed an objection against the proposed grant of permits on the premise that the said route overlaps portions of the notified route failing within the Kolar Pocket Scheme, from Kolar Gold Field to Five Light Cross to an extent of 5 kilometer and Desihalli to Bagarpet to an extent of 1.5 kilometer. It was urged before the Regional Transport Authority that the Scheme being of complete exclusion of private operators, no permit could be granted on the said portion of the notified route. However, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that overlapping two portions of the notified route should be construed as intersection and not overlapping and, therefore, the permit can be granted. The Regional Transport Authority, by its resolution dated 4.3.85 overruled the objections of the appellant herein and granted stage carriage permit in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved against the order of the Regional Transport Authority, the appellant filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The Appellate Tribunal, after having found that the Scheme being for total exclusion of the private operators, no permit can be granted on the notified route or portion thereof, and in that view of the matter the appeal preferred by the appellant was allowed and the grant of permit in favour of the respondent was set aside. The respondent thereafter preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Karn

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 40

IMPORTANT POINTOnce a scheme (under Chapter IV-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 since repealed) is for total exclusion prohibiting private operators from plying stage carriage on a whole or part of a notified route, no permit can be granted on the notified route or portion thereof.

Cases Referred (10)

IMPORTANT POINT
Once a scheme (under Chapter IV-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 since repealed) is for total exclusion prohibiting private operators from plying stage carriage on a whole or part of a notified route, no permit can be granted on the notified route or portion thereof.