T.V. NATARAJ AND ORS. ETC. A  v.  

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC. ·  

DECEMBER 14,1993  

(A.M. AHMADI ANJ) R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] B  

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-S.68-C..,-Notification of route-Excluding  completely or partially private operators from plying on· notified  route-Wliether excludes operators of inter-State route a/scr-Suggestion for  framing proper legislation--Or taking appropriate steps so as to avoid incon-. C  venience to public-Reiterated.  

The appellants were permit-holders of stage carriages opentlng on  inter-State route having starting point at one or the other place In Kar- nataka and termini In Tamil Nadu. Some of them were opentlng on the  intra-State route before the route was notified by Anekal Pocket Scheme D  of 1959 under s. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. But their plying was  not affected as the Scheme was treated as of partial exclusion or not  applicable to Inter-State route. Latter, their permits were cancelled by the  Tnnsport Authority on the ground that the same overlapped the route  notified by publication of the Scheme. Aggrieved, the appellants ap- E  proached the High Court, but could not succeed. Hence the appeals by  special leave.  

It was contended by the appellants that since opentors of Inter-State  route were not excluded from the notified Scheme, their permits could not  have been cancelled.  

Dismissing the appeals, this Court  

F  

HELD : U. Once a scheme is published In relation to any area or  route or portion thereof, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial or G  other persons or otherw1$e, no person other than the State Transport  Undertaking may operate on the notllled area or notified route except as  provided In the Scheme Itself. Conseqllently, no private operator could  opente bis vehicle on any part or portion of a notllled area or notllled  route unless unauthorised so to do by the terms of the Scheme Itself.  

f962·B·D] H  951  

'

958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.  

A Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr. v. State of UP. & Ors., (1985) 4  sec 557, followed.  

1.2. In the absence of express authorisation in the Scheme, the  controversy as to whether Notification of a route under s.68-C of the Motor  Vehicles Act, 1939 excluding completely or partially private operators from  

B plying on the notified route results In excluding the operators of inter-State  route as well, is no more res-integra. [963-C]  

c  

Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1985) 4  sec 557' followed.  

H.C. Narayanappa & Ors. v. The State of Mysore & Ors., (1960) 3  SCR 742; Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. The Mysore Revenue  Appellate Tribunal & Ors., [1975) 1 SCR 493; Mysore State Road Transport  Corporation v. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribuna~ AIR (1974) SC  1940 and Abdul Khader Saheb v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribuna~ Ban-

D galore, [1973) 2 SCR 925 =AIR 1973 SC 534, referred to.  

E  

1.3. Though the scheme does not mention private operators of Inter·  State route It is not the implied but express authorisation In the Scheme  which could permit a private Inter-State Operator to ply on a notifted  intra-State route. [962-G)  

Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1985) 4  ~cc 557, followed.  

Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore State Transport  F Appellate Tribunal, AIR (1974) SC 1940, relied on.  

2. It Is reiterated that it Is for the State to take steps so as to avoid  any inconvenience to public either by framing a proper legislation or by  taking steps as suggested by this Court earlier. (963-D)  

G Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr. v. Stale of U.P. & Ors., (1985) 4  sec 557, followed.  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7435·  7447 of 1993.  

H From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.93 of the Karnataka High

NATARAlv. STATE [SAHAI,J.] 959  

Court in W.A. Nos. 1642, 2018, 1612 & 1641/89 and W.P. Nos. 18992, A  18993, 14902 to 14908 of 1993.  

WITH  

Civil Appeal No. 7450 of 1993.  

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.93 of the Karnataka High  

Court in W.P. No. 18948 of 1993.  

WITH  

B  

Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 18152-53 of 1993 (Computer Code C  No. 22313 of 1993).  

AK. Sen, M.R.V. Achar, C.S. Shanthamallappa, G. Prabhakar and  N.D.B. Raju for the Appellants.  

R. Santhana Krishnan, Ms. Sutheela, Ms. Rajani and K.R. Nagaraja D  for the Respondents.  

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by  

RM. SABAi, J. Whether notification of a route under Section 68-C  of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') excluding completely E  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.  

Although the controversy appears to have been settled long ago yet  the circumstances in which the dispute has been continuing till now and F  has reached this Court may be narrated. The appellants are permit holders  of stage carriage operating on inter-State route having starting point at one  or the other place in State of Karnataka and termini in the State of Tamil  Nadu. Some of them are operating on the inter-State route since before  the route was notified by what has come to be known as 'Anekal Pocket G  Scheme' of 1959. But their plying was not affected as the Scheme was  treated as of partial 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

960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.  

I  

A H. C. Narayanappa & Ors. v. The State of Mysore & Ors., [1960] 3 SCR 742.  

B  

c  

D  

E  

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. Col. 1 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 15.4.1959 no passenger from ariy point situared  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'.  

In 1963, it is claimed that the State Transport Authorities of Kar- nataka 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  

F permit was objected to by the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation  in so far as it overlapped notified routes. The dispute ultimately reached  this Court and question arose whether a term, it could be granted to an  inter-State transport operator for the whole of th~ route despite the fact  

·that a part of the route overlapped a part of notified intra-State· route. In  G Mysore State Road TranspoTt Corporation v. The Mysore Revenue Appellate  

Tn'bunal & Ors., [1975] 1 SCR 493, 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,  

H it wa~ a question of interpretation of the Scheme framed under Section 68-

NATARAlv. STATE[SAHAl,J.] 961  

C of the Act whether it intended to exclude private operators from opera!- A  ing on the route totally or partially. The Bench thereafter, on an examina- tion 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 overlapping portions of routes  covered by the Scheme as their names were not mentioned as required by  the rules. The Bench further observed that the Scheme mentioned com- B  plete exclusion, but this exclusion was in respect of operators providing  services between the termini mentioned therein and not merely using  overlapping portions of the notified routes incidentally. Soon after this  judgment was rendered anothet appeal filed by the Mysore State Road  Transport Corporation in respect of inter-State route of a different scheme C  came up for consideration before a 3-Judge bench in Mysore State Road  Transport Corporation v. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribuna~ AIR  (1974) SC 1940. Even though the nature of pennits was different the Bench  observed that there was, 'no difference in the principle applicable to both  the cases. The principle governing intra-State routes has been extended to  inter-state routes vide Abdul Khader Saheb v. Mysore Revenue Appellate D  Tribuna~ Bangalore, (1973] 2 SCR 925 = AIR (1973) SC 534. As the recent·  decision to which reference has been made seems io 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'. The majority in the Bench after  examining the matter in detail held :  

'With respect we do not doubt the correctness of the decision in  Nilkanth Prasad's case 1962 Supp. (1) SCR 7']2, = AIR 1962 SC  1135 which followed the decisions of different Constitution  Benches of this Court'.  

The effect of this decision was that the decision rendered in Mysore State  Road Transport Corporation v. The Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal &  Ors., [1975] 1 SCR 493, was held not to be good law. Yet it appears the  inter-State permit holders have been plying with corridor restriction and  

E  

F  

the objection raised by the Corporation was not accepted presumably  because the latter case related to intra-State route. However, the dispute G  about inter-State route reached this Court again in Civil Appeal No.  1198-1']2,2 of 1986. By that time the decision in Constitution Bench case in  Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1985] 4 SCC 557,  had been rendered. The Bench, therefore, did not enter into merits and  directed the State Transport Authority to decide it again in the light of H

962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.  

A Adarsh Travels' case (supra). This time the objection was upheld by the  State Transport Auth0Tity and the appeal and writ petition filed against  the order cancelling permits of the appellants also failed.  

B  

c  

D  

In Adarsh Travels' case (supra), this Court held :  

"A careful and diligent perusal of Section 68-C, Section 68-D (3)  and Section 68-FF in the light of the definition of the expression  'route' in Section 2(28-A) 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, com- plete or partial of other persons or otherwise, no person other than  the State Transport Underiaking may operate on the notified area  or notified route except as provided in the scheme itself. A neces- sary consequence of these provisions is that no private operator  can operate his vehicle on any part or portion of a notified area  or notified route unless authorised so to do by the terms of the  scheme itself .... '.  

The decision in Mysore State Road TranspoTt Corporation v. The Mysore .  Revenue Appellate TribU11al & Ors., [ 1975) 1 SCR 493, which was not  approved in Mysore Stale Road TranspoTt Corporation v. Mysore State  

E Tra11sp0Tt Appellate Tribuna~ AIR (1974) SC 1940, was specifically over- rulled. The distinction, therefore, of partial or complete exclusion from  notified route became immaterial. Clause (3) of the approved Scheme  

-published in January 1959 reads as under :  

"The route or routes (with their starting points, termini, inter- F mediate stations and route length) in which the State Transport  

Undertaking will introduce its services to the exclusion of private  operators".  

It is true that it does not mention private operators of inter-State route,  G but in view of the decisions inAdarsh. Travels' case (supra) and Mysore State  

Road TranspoTt Appellate Tribunal, AIR (1974) SC 1940, it is not the  implied but express authorisation in the Scheme which could permit a  private inter-State operator to ply on a notified intra-State route.  

Mr. Ashok Sen, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, rel,ied  H on observations in Adarsh Travels case (supra) and urged that whether a

NATARA11•.STATE(SAHAJ,J.j . %3  

scheme was for total or partial exclusion depended on interpretation of the A  scheme itsell. 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 submition cannot be accepted in view of overruling of the earlier  decision of this Court in Mysore Stale Road Transport Corporation v. The B  Mysore Reve11ue Appellate Tribunal & Ors., (19751 1 SCR 493, by the  Constitution Bench. Even though the Bench in Mysore State Road Transport  Corporation v. 171e Mysore Revenue Appel/Ille Tribunal & Ors., (197511 SCR  493, did not consider it necessary to decide if publication of scheme  precludes an inter-State operator from playing on notified portion of  intra-State route as the Bench was satisfied that the scheme did not exclude C  an inter-State operator from plying but in view of the decision in Adars/o  Travels' case (supra) and in absence of express authorisation in the  Scheme, the Controversy is no more res-integra.  

In the result, these appeals fail and are dismissed. We may, however, D  while dismissing these appeals, reiterate what was said in Adanh Travels'  case (supra) that it is for the State to take steps so as to avoid any  inconvenience to the public either by framing a proper legislation or by  taking steps, as were pointed out in that decision.  

R.P. Appeals dismissed.