Holding

The scheme, once approved, is a law that overrides Rule 282(2)(ii) and any administrative instruction, so private operators cannot operate beyond the 8‑km overlap on the notified route.

Summary

The appellants, private stage‑carriage operators, held temporary permits to ply a town‑service route (Chandragiri‑Renigunta via Tirupati) and relied on a government memorandum stating that town‑service routes could extend up to 8 km beyond municipal limits. The respondents, the Regional Transport Authority, contended that the approved scheme under Chapter IVA of the (now repealed) Motor Vehicles Act expressly prohibited private operators from operating on the notified route beyond the 8‑km overlap permitted in the scheme. The Supreme Court examined whether Rule 282(2)(ii) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964 could be read independently to allow such extension or must be read subject to the scheme’s strict restrictions. Relying on earlier decisions (Ram Krishna Vernia, Adarsh Travels, Afsar Jahan Begum, Viswanathan) the Court held that a published scheme is a law that overrides other provisions and that administrative instructions cannot modify it without a statutory amendment. Consequently, the town‑service provision does not give private operators the right to run beyond 8 km on the notified route, and the scheme’s exceptions are the only permissible overlap. The appeals were dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 282(2)(ii) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964 can be read independently to permit town‑service routes to extend up to 8 km beyond municipal limits on a notified route.
Whether the scheme approved under Chapter IVA of the repealed Motor Vehicles Act, with its strict restrictions and exceptions, must be given overriding effect over Rule 282(2)(ii) and administrative instructions.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Subjects

Town serviceMotor vehicle regulationsTransport schemeAdministrative instructionPrivate operator rightsRoute extensionStatutory interpretationPublic transport law

Judgment

...., C. KASTURI AND ORS. ETC .
v.
SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
A

AND ANR. ETC.

JANUARY 31, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND
G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

' A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1964:
c
Rule 282(2) (ii)--Notified scheme-Town Service route-Not to extend
more than 8 KMS. beyond limits of the Municipality of Town from which it
starts-Nor could it extend to 8 KMS. overlapping on the notified route from
niunicipal lintit~Administrative instrnction not override the sche1ne-Stage
carriage holders of pemiits stand excluded and private operators cannot D
• operate on the notified area or route overlapping more than 8 .KMS. on the
notified route.

Administrative Law :

Administrative instruction cannot overrided a scheme unless the E
scheme is legally modified under the Act.

Ram Krishna Vernia & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1992) 2 SCC 620;
Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1985) Supp 3
SCR 661; Smt Afsar Jahan Begum Etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. F
etc., JT (1996) 1 SC 604 and A. Viswanathan v. State Transport Appellate
Tribunal Pandicherry & Anr., [1987) 2 SCC 73, relied on.

Nilkanth Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bi/tar, [1962) Supp 1 SCR 728,
referred to.
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 356-57
of 1986 Etc. Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.85 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.A. No. 434 and 431 of 1984. H
1085
r/
1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A A. Subba Rao, A. V. Rangam and A. Ranganadhan for the Appel-
lants.

G. Ramaswamy, Sanjay Hegde, B. Parthasarathy, K. Ram Kumar, C.
Balasubramaniam for the Respondents.

B T.V.S. Chari and G. Prabhakar, (NP) for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
'-
Leave granted.
T

c 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 fairly in dispute. In the
first case, the appellant had obtained a temporary permit under Section 62
D ~
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
I '
scheme and the Rules under the repealed Act. Admittedly, the appellant
has been running the vehicle on the town service, Tirupati, a Pilgrim Centre
E 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. Chandragiri to {

Renigunta via Triupati is the notified approved route under Chapter IVA
of the repealed Act. The appellants had relied upon a memorandum issued
F 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 memorandum, they filed writ petitions
in the High Court. In Writ Petition No. 1995 of 1983, the learned single
Judge of the High Court held that by operation of the prohibitions con-
G
tained in the scheme in Notes 2 a,nd 3 thereof, the town service could not
be extended upto a distance of 8 Kms. from the municipal limits the same ..l..
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 •
H and in other cases on different dates, confirmed the same.
C. KASTURI v. SECRETARY REGNL. TPT. AUTHORITY 1087

...
.
Mr. A. Subba Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants A
who led the batch, contended that Rule 282(2)(ii) expressly mentions that
town service shall no construed to be extendible to the other limits of the
municipality and so town service would encompass 8 Krns. 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
B
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
T operate only within the town area. Rule 282(2)(ii) requires to be inter-
preted only when there is inter-section between the notified area and the c
town service ; the scheme is a complete code in itself. The exceptions and
rights given in the scheme which is a 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, D
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 Krns. 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 E
law.

The question, therefore, as posed earlier, is : whether Rule 282(2)(ii)
would he read into the notified scheme and given an interpretation extend-
ing the service upto the distance of 8 Krns. from the limits of the town. F
Rule 282(1) reads thus :

"Rule 282 Fixation of stages for stage caniages : (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. G
The maximum distance of such stage shall not ordinarily exceed
)...
6.4 Kms. When stages are so .fixed, fares shall be collected accord-
ing to stages. '1

Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 282 provides that the Regional Transport H
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A 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
beyond the limits of the municipality or town from which it starts
provided that this restriction shall not apply to any town service
B 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 dear that no route of town service shall
C 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.

D The Scheme is as under :

THE SCHEME
....
i
1. Route (Starting point and ter- Chandragiri-Renigunta Via
minus with important inter- Tirupathi (21 Kms)
E mediate stations and route
length

2. Area (Names of route with - do -
starting points and termini and
intermediate stations and route
F length

3. Whether town service or mof- Stale Carriage/Moffussil ser-
fussil service or both vice.

4. Maximum and minimum num- The following number of buses
G ber of vehicles proposed to be are proposed to be operated to
operated on each route by the the complete exclusion of all
..{_
State Transport Undertaking to other persons holding stage car-
the exclusion, complete or par- riage permits on the proposed
tial or otherwise of other per- route and such· other per.sons
H sons: holding stage carriage permits
C. KASTURI v. SECRETARY, REGNL. TPT. AUTHORITY 1089

on the routes overlapping com- A
pletely or partially on the
proposed route except to the ex-
tent specified in the note
hereunder.

a. Maximum number 2. B

b. Minimum number 1.

c. Type Saloon.
'
d. Capacity 40-60 Seating capacity c
5. Maximum and,, minimum num- The following number of round
ber of trips proposed to be per- trips are proposed to be
formed on each route by the operated to the complete ex-

.. State Transport Undertaking to
the exclusion, complete or par-
clusion of all other persons
holding stage carriage permits D
tial or otherwise of other per- on the routes overlapping com-
sons pletely or partially on the
proposed route except to the ex-
tent hereunder.

a. Maximum Number 14 E

b. Minimum Number 7

6. No. of vehicles intended to be 10% of the total fleet required
kept in reserve to niaintain the for operation of scheduled ser-
service and to provide for spe- vice in the region will be kept in
F
cial occasions. service.

7. The arrangements proposed for The existing and proposed
the housing, maintenance and Depots of the APSRTC will
repair of the vehicles provide for housing, main- G
tenance and repairs of the
vehicles.

- 8. The arrangements proposed for
the comfort and convenience of
the passengers
Bus stations at important traffic
points and way-side shelters are
proposed to be constructed. In H
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 1 S.C.R.

A addition drinking water facilities
will be provided at important
places during summer.

9. The arrangements proposed for At important traffic points
the stands and halts on the route where bus stations are proposed
B at which copies of time tables of to be constructed, time table
the service are proposed to be boards will be exhibited.
exhibited

10. Whether it is proposed to per- Newspaper parcels unaccom- T

mit the carriage of goods in ad- panies luggage and postal mail
c dition to the passengers. bags will be permitted in addi-
tion to the passengers and their
personal luggage.

(By ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF
D ANDHRA PRADESH)

Note : This scheme shall not affect ;

1. The State transport undertakings of the other states.

E 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.
F
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
G 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
...
H following the procedure prescribed in Chapter IVA. Section 68C, 68D-(3)
C. KASTURI v. SECRETARY, REGNL. TPT. AUTHORITY 1091

and 68-FF are applicable to the scheme. The schemes covered by Chapter A
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 maximum and minimum number
of trips proposed to be performed on each route by the State Transport B
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.
c
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) D
provides the holders of the stage carriage permits in respect of such routes
' or routes which 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 E
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 F
ply their vehicles in a town service inter-secting notified route, overlapping
"shall not be more than 8 Kms. on th~ notified routes as the case may be".

"Route" has been defined under Section 2(28-A), to dispel any con-
fusion consequent upon seeming accepiance by this Court in Nilkanth G
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 authorisation 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 H
1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A the narrow exceptions engrafted in the scheme itself. It is settled law which
was reiterated by this Court in Ram Krishna Venna & Ors. vs. Stale of UP.
& On., [1992] 2 SCC 620 that 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 o~ the route or operation thereof covered under \:
B the scheme except to the extent excluded under the Scheme itself. The right
of private operators 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
C 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.
D
In Adarsh Travels Bus Se1vice & Anr. vs. Stale 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, 68-0(3) .and
E 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
F State Transport Undertaking may operate on the notified area or
notified route except as provided 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
G 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 in Sml. Afsar Jahan
Begum etc. v. Stale of Madhya Pradesh & 01:i. etc., JT 1996 (1) SC 604 held
H thus:
C. KASTURI v. SECRETARY, REGNL. TPT. AUTHORITY 1093

"In this view of the matter, the only relaxation from the frozen A
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 B
1
interest1 •

The decision relied on by Mr. G. Ramaswamy in A. Vzswanathan vs.
State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry & Anr. [(1987) 2 SCC 73]
lays down the law and we approve of it to be the correct law ; under Section C
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 D
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 E
notified route strictly in accordance with the scheme only and within the
exceptions engrafted thereunder. By necessary implication, the "town ser-
vice" 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
F
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)
1 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 G
1 ~- vehicle beyond 8 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 repealed ·H
T
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996( 1 S.C.R.

,.. ..'
A Act or the 1988 Act according to Jaw. 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
B dismissed but without costs.

G.N. Appeals dismissed.
i...

•