http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: C. KASTURI & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY & ANR. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       31/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1664            JT 1996 (3)   458  1996 SCALE  (2)900

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH     CIVIL APPEFL Nos.3923/86, 3922/85, 4049/87, 4383/90,                      3776/88, & 4816/91                             AND               CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4463-65 OF 1996 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.16421/9O, 2074/91 and 4741/9O)                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      These appeals raise a question: whether Rule 282(2)(ii) of the  A.P. Motor  Vehicles Rules,  1964 would be read into the notified  route and  given an interpretation extending 8 Kms. from  the municipal  limits  of  the  town  service  or whether  the   conditions  of   the  scheme  and  exceptions engrafted therein  are strictly  to be  construed? The facts are not  fairly in dispute. In the first case, the appellant had obtained  a temporary  permit under  Section 62  of  the Motor Vehicles  Act, 1939 (Act No.4 of 1939) (for short, the ’repealed Act’) which stands repealed by Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. But  we are  concerned on  the facts of this case with the interpretation  of the  scheme and  the Rules  under the repealed Act. Admittedly, the appellant has been running the vehicle on  the town  service, Tirupati, a Pilgrim Center of Lord Venkateswara  Swamy known  in north India as Balaji, in Andhra Pradesh  obtaining renewals  on temporary  basis from time to  time. We  are informed that in other cases they are pakka stage  carriage permit holders obtaining permits under Section 58  of the repealed Act. Chandigarh to Renigunta via Tirupati is the notified approved route under Chapter IVA of the  repealed   Act.  The   appellants  had  relied  upon  a memorandum issued  by the  Government dated November 9, 1981 in  which   it  was  stated  that  the  town  service  stood extendible to  a distance  of 8  Kms. from municipal limits. When the  appellants  were  prohibited  to  run  their  town service upto  the extent  of 8  Kms. on  the basis  of  such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

memorandum, they  filed writ  petitions in the High Court In Writ Petitions No.1995 of 1983, the learned singles Judge of the High  Court held  that by  operation of the prohibitions contained in  the scheme  in Notes 2 and 3 thereof, the town service could not be extended upto a distance of 8 Kms. from the municipal  limits the same being contrary to the scheme. Accordingly, the  Court dismissed the writ petition. Similar cases met  with the  same fate.  in W.A.Nos.434 & 431/84 and batch, the  Division Bench  of the High Court by order dated 30.10.85 and  in other  cases on  different dates, confirmed the same.      Mr. A. Subba Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants who  led the batch, contended that Rule 282(2(ii) expressly mentions  that town  service shall be construed to be extendible to the outer limits of the municipality and so town service  would encompass  8  kms.  from  the  municipal limits. Though  it is  notified route,  the  appellants  are entitled to  run their vehicles on the notified route upto a distance of  8 Kms.  the same  being  a  part  of  the  town service.  The   interpretation  given   by  the  High  Court therefore, is  incorrect in  law. Shri G. Ramaswamy, learned senior counsel  appearing for the Corporation contended that there is  a distinction  between muffasil  service and  town service. The  town   service is  intended  to  operate  only within  the   town  area  Rule  282(2)(ii)  requires  to  be interpreted only  when there  is inter-section between   the notified area  and the  town    service;  the  scheme  is  a complete code  in itself The exceptions end rights  given in the scheme  which law,  requires to be interpreted strictly. The appellant  in the first case having obtained a temporary permit under Section 62 of the repealed Act, it outlived its life the moment the period of four months expires. He is not an existing  operator on the route and, therefore. he cannot come within  the exceptions  engrafted in  the scheme. It is also contended  that if  any permit  is granted  in the town service, in  view of the language used in the scheme and the exceptions engrafted,  it shall not overlap more than 8 Kms. on the  notified route.  If it so overlaps, there is a total prohibition for running the vehicle in the notified route in town. The  interpretation put  up  by  the  High  Court  is, therefore, correct in law.      The question,  therefore, as posed earlier, is: whether Rule 282(2)(ii)  would be  read into the notified scheme and given an  interpretation  extending  the  service  upto  the distance of  8 Kms. from the limits of the town. Rule 282(1) reads thus:      "Rule 202  Fixation to  stages  for      stage carriages: (1) In the case of      stage     carriages  the   Regional      Transport   Authority, shall, after      consultation   with    such   other      authority as it may deem desirable,      fix  stages   on  all   bus  routes      except  where   town  service   are      plying.  The  maximum  distance  of      such  stage  shall  not  ordinarily      exceed 6.4  Kms. When stages are so      fixed, fares  shall be    collected      according to stages."      Sub-Rule (2)  of Rule  282 provides  that the  Regional Transport  Authority   shall,  subject   to  the   following restrictions determine  which are  town service routes. Rule 282(2)(ii) reads as under:      "No route  of  town  service  shall      extend  more   than  8   Kilometers

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

    beyond   the    limits    of    the      municipality or  town from which it      starts    provided     that    this      restriction shall  not apply to any      town service  routes, Which were in      existence on  the date of coming of      these  rules   into  force   or  in      respect of  those routes  for which      specific    permission    of    the      Transport      Commissioner      is      obtained."      A reading  of it  makes it  clear that no route of town service shall  extend more  than 8 Kms. beyond the limits of the municipality  or town  from which it starts. The proviso provided that  the restrictions  shall not apply to any town service routes which were in existence on the date of coming of these  rules into force or in respect of those routes for which specific  permission of the Transport Commissioner was obtained. The Scheme is as under:                          THE SCHEME 1. Route (Starting point and   Chandragiri-Ranigupta    terminus  with  important   Via Tirupathi (21Kms)    intermediats stations     and route length 2. Area (Names of route with         -do-    starting points and term-    ini   and    intermediate    stations and route length 3. Whether town service or      State Carriage/Moffussil    moffussil  service   or      service.    both 4. Maximum and minimum          The following number of    number of vehicles           buses and proposed to be    proposed to be operated      operated to the complete    on each route by the         exclusion of all other    State Transport Under-       persons holding stage    taking to the exclusion,     carriage permits on the    complete or partial          proposed route and such    or otherwise of other        other persons holding stage    persons:                     carriage permits on the                                 route overlapping completely                                 or partially on the proposed                                 route except to the extent                                 specified in the note                                 hereunder. a. Maximum number               2. b. Minimum number               1. c. Type                         Saloon d. Capacity                     40-60 Seating capacity 5. Maximum and minimum          The following number of    number of trips proposed     round trips are proposed    to be performed on each      to be operated to the    route by the State           complete exclusion of all    Transport Undertaking to     other persons holding stage    to the exclusion, complete   carriage permits on the    or partial or otherwise of   route overlapping completely    other persons                or partially on the proposed                                 route except to the extent                                 hereunder. a. Maximum Number               14 b. Minimum Number               7 6. No. of vehicle intended to   10% of the total fleet    be kept in reserve to        required for operation of    maintain the service and     scheduled service in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

  to provide for special       region will be kept in    occasions.                   service. 7. The arrangements proposed     The existing and proposed    for the housing, mainta-     Depots of the APSRTC will    inence and repair of the     provide for housing,    vehicles                     maintenance and repairs of                                 the vehicles. 8. The arrangements proposed    Bus stations at important    for the comfort and          traffic points and wayside    convenience of the           shelters are proposed to be    passengers                   constructed. In addition                                 drinking water facilities                                 will be provided at                                 important places during                                 summer. 9. The arrangements proposed    At important traffic points    for the stands and halts     where bus stations are    on the route at which        proposed to be constructed,    copies of time tables of     time table boards will be    the service are proposed     exhibited.    to be exhibited 10.Whether it is proposed to    Newspaper parcels unaccompa-    permits the carriage of      nies luggage and postal mail    goods in addition to the     bags will be permitted in    passengers.                  addition to the passengers                                 and their personal luggage. (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR Of ANDHRA PRADESH) Note: This scheme shall not affect; 1. The State transport undertakings of the other states. 2. The  holders of  the existing  stage carriage  permits in respect of town service routes; 3. The  holders of  the future  stage  carriage  permits  in respect of  town service routes having an overlapping of not more than 8 Kms. on the notified route. 4. The  holders of  the existing  stage carriage  permits in respect of  such route/routes  which overlap not more than 8 Kms. on the notified route; 5. The permit holders of the existing stage carriage permits on the inter-state routes overlapping the notified route.      This is  the scheme  which was  relied upon in the High Court and  also before  us as  a sample case. It is a scheme notified under  Section 68-D(2)  of the  repealed Act and it was approved  under  Section  68-D(3)  after  following  the procedure prescribed  in Chapter  IVA. Sections 68C, 68D-(3) and 68-FF  are applicable to the scheme. The schemes covered by Chapter IVA are now saved by 1988 Act in Chapter V unless it is modified according to the said Act and continues to be valid law  under the 1988 Act. The distance of the scheme is 21 Kms.  The route is Chandragiri-Renigunta via Tirupati. In Col.5, it  is stated  that the maximun and minimum number of trips proposed  to be  performed on  each route by the State Transport Undertaking  is  to  the  exclusion,  complete  or partial or  otherwise, of  other persons.  It is stated that the performance of the trips is to the complete exclusion of all other  operators holding  stage carriage  permits on the route overlapping  completely  or  partially  on  the  route except to the extent indicated in the scheme.      This scheme  shall not  affect the exceptions mentioned in clauses  (1) to  (5) Clause  (2) provides right to ply on town service  routes to  the holders  of the  existing stage carriage permits.  Clause (3) provides the holders of future stage carriage  permits in  respect of  town service  routes having an  overlapping of  not  more  than  8  Kms.  on  the notified route; Clause (4) provides the holders of the stage carriage permits  in respect  of such routes or routes which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

overlap not  more than  8 Kms., the notified route A reading of Clause (5) of the scheme and the exceptions which require to be  read together  clearly indicates that on the route on which State  Transport Undertaking operates its service, the private holders  of the  stage carriage  permits existing or future  holders   are  completely   excluded  on  the  route overlapping, completely  or partially,  except to the extent indicated  therein,  i.e  8.  K.M.  The  scheme  itself  has excluded certain  area. As  indicated  earlier,  either  the holder of  the existing  stage carriage  permit on  the town service or  future stage  carriage service  permit  holders, though entitled  to ply  their vehicles  in a  town  service inter-secting notified  route, the overlapping "shall not be more than 8 Kms. on the notified routes as the case may be".      "Route" has  been  defined  under  Section  2(28A),  to dispel any  confusion consequent  upon seeming acceptance by this Court  in Nilkanth  Prasad &  Ors. vs.  State of  Bihar [1962 Supp  (1) SCR  728] it  means "a  line of travel which specifies the  highway which  may be  traversed by  a  motor vehicle between  one terminus  and another".  Permit  is  an authorization to use stage carriage vehicle etc. to use such vehicle. The  permit having  been granted  on  the  notified route, the  holder of  the  stage  carriage  permit  on  the notified route  is to  operate or  perform the  trips on the route only  within the  narrow exceptions  engrafted in  the scheme itself,  It is  settled law  which was  reiterated by this Court  in Ram  Krishna Verma  & Ors. vs. State of U.P & Ors. [(1992) 2 SCC 620that the draft or approved scheme is a law by  itself and  it has  an over-riding  effect on  other Chapters of  the Act. It operates against everyone unless it is modified.  It excludes private operators from the area or the route  or operation  thereof covered  under  the  scheme except to  the extent  excluded under the Scheme itself. The right of private operator to apply for and to obtain permits in  Chapter   IV  of  the  repealed  Act  and  the  relevant corresponding Chapter  of the  new 1988 Act to the extent of the notified  and approved scheme in Chapter IVA of repealed Act and  corresponding provisions  in  1988  Act,  has  been frozen and  prohibited. No  private  operator  is  permitted thereafter,  to  operate  his  stage  carriage  or  contract carriage on  the notified  route except  as provided  in the scheme itself.  The source  of the  right, if  at all  it is available to  seek, is  only under the scheme. Chapter IV to that extent  stands excluded and S.T.U. gets exclusive right to  ply   its  stage   carriage  vehicles  on  the  notified route/routes covered by the scheme.      In Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr. vs. State of U.P & Ors. [1985  Supp (3)  SCR 661]  a Constitution Bench of this Court considered  the effect  of the scheme and the right of the private operators, and stated thus:      "A careful  and diligent perusal of      Sections 68-C, 68-D(3) and 68-FF in      the light  of the definition of the      expression   "route"   in   section      2(28A)   appears    to   make    it      manifestly  clear   that    once  a      scheme is  published under  section      68-D in  relation to  any  area  or      route or   portion thereof, whether      to  the   exclusion,  complete   or      partial   of   other   persons   or      otherwise, no person other than the      State  Transport   Undertaking  may      operate on  the  notified  area  or      notified route  except as  provided

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

    in the  scheme  itself. A necessary      consequence of  these provisions is      that  no   private   operator   can      operate his vehicles on any part or      portion  of   a  notified  area  or      notified route unless authorised so      to   do by  the terms of the scheme      itself. He  may not  operate on any      part or  portion  of  the  notified      route or  area on   the mere ground      that  the   permit  as   originally      granted to him covered the notified      route or area."      After referring  to the above decision, this Court Smt. Afsar Jahan  Begum etc.  v. State  of Madhya  Pradesh & Ors. etc. [JT 1996 (1) SC 604] held thus:           "In this  view of  the matter,      the only relaxation from the frozen      notified route  or  area  from  the      scheme is as provided in the scheme      itself. If  any  operator,  or  any      route  intersecting   the  notified      route, has of necessity, to ply the      vehicle strictly in conformity with      the  restrictive  corridor  shelter      and no  more. The relaxation is not      meant  to   sabotage  the  approved      scheme  but   to  subserve   public      interest".      The decision relied on by Mr. G. Ramaswamy in vs. State Transport Appellate  Tribunal Pondicherry  & Anr.  [(1982) 2 SCC 73]  lays down  the law  and we  approve of it to be the correct law;  under Section  62(1) of  the Act, if temporary permit is  granted, it  outlives its  existence on expiry of four months and it cannot be intended to be a continuous one for a number of years except when permanent permit was given and application  for renewal  was pending  as  envisaged  in Section 62(1).  If any  renewal is to be made to a temporary permit, it  will be in violation of the statute. However, in this case,  it is  not necessary  for us  to  go  into  that question since  that question did not directly arise for our consideration.      It would,  thus, be  clear that  once a  notified draft scheme  has   been  approved   and  published,  the  private operators operate  their  services  on  the  notified  route strictly in  accordance with  the scheme only and within the exceptions engrafted  thereunder. By  necessary implication, the "town  service" as  defined in Rule 282(2)(ii) has to be read subject  to the  scheme in  Chapter IVA of the repealed Act. If  so read,  clauses 2,  3 and  4 are to operate as an exception and  they provide only a right to overlap not more than 8  Kms in  the  notified  route.  Otherwise,  the  town service  will  cease  to  be  town  service  and  would  get transformed into  a muffussal route and the private operator would run  his stage carriage along the line of the notified route which  is impermissible.  When so  read, though  under Rule 282(2)(ii)  town service  extends upto  8 Kms. from the municipal limits,  that does  not give any right to a holder of a  town service  stage carriage permit to run his vehicle beyond 5  kms. on the notified route nor does it extend to 8 Kms.  overlapping  on  the  notified  route  from  municipal limits. The  memo is an administrative instruction issued by the Government  which cannot  have an  over-riding effect on the scheme  since scheme  by itself is law unless the scheme is duly  and legally  modified under  the provisions  of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

repealed Act  or the  1988 Act  according to  law. The Stage carriage holders  of permits  stand excluded and thereby the private operators  cannot operate  on the  notified area  or route overlapping more than 8 Kms. on the notified route.      The appeals,  therefore, merit  no acceptance. They are accordingly dismissed but without costs.