T.V. NATARAJ AND ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC.

                      T.V. NATARAJ AND ORS. ETC.                                    A
                                  v.
                  STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC.

                               DECEMBER 14,1993

                                                                                    B


-
                     (A.M. AHMADI AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.]

           Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-S.68-C-:-Notification of route-Excluding
     completely or partially private operators from plying on notified
     route-Whether excludes operators of inter-State route also-Suggestion for
     framing proper legislation-Or taking appropriate steps so as to avoid incon·. C
     venience to public--Reiterated.
           The appellants were permlt·holders of stage carriages operating 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 operating on the
     intra-State route before the route was notifted 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
     Transport Authority on the ground that the same overlapped the route
     notifted by publication of the Scheme. Aggrieved, the appellants ap·           E
     proached the High Court, but could not succeed. Hence the appeaJ11 by
     special leave.

           It was contended by the appellants that since operators of inter-State

·-   route were not excluded from the notified Scheme, their permits could not
     have been cancelled.                                                           F
                                                                                        '


           Dismissing the appeals, this Court

           HELD : 1.1. Once a scheme is published in relation to any area or
     route or portion thereof, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial or
     other persons or otherwise, no person other than the State Transport           G
     Undertaking may operate on the notlfted area or notlfted route except as
     provided in the Scheme itself. Consequently, no private operator could
     operate his vehicle on any part or portion of a notifted area or notified
     route unless unauthorised so to do by the terms of the Scheme itself.
                                                                     r962·B·DJ      H
                                        957
    958                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 s.c.R..

A         Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr. v, State of U.P. & 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]

          Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1985) 4         ...
    sec 557, followed.
c        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 Tribunal, 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.
          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 priva~e inter-State Operator to ply on a notified
E   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. State of U.P. & Ors., (1985) 4
    sec 5~7, followed.
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7435-
    7447 of 1993.

H         From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.93 of the Kamataka High
                     NATARAJv. STATE[SAHAl,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.
                                                                                 B
     From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.93 of the Karnataka High
Court in W.P. No. 18948 of 1993.

                                   WITH

     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

      R.M. SARAI, 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 iocket            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.

A H.C. Narayanappa & Ors. v. The State of Mysore & Ors., [1960] 3 SCR 742.
     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
B            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
c            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
D            notified by the Government of Mysore in its Notification No. HD
             39-EMB-59 dated 15.4.1959 no passenger from any 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".
E
          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 Transport Corporation v. The Mysore Revenue Appellate
   Tri"llunal & 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 exclud5l 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-
                          NATARATv. STATE[SAHAl,J.]                          961

     C of the Act whether it intended to exclude private operators from operat- 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 mentionr;:d 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 another 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 Tribunal, AIR
     (1974) SC 1940. Even though the nature of permits 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
     Tribunal, Bangalore, [1973] 2 SCR 925 = AIR (1973) SC 534. As the recent
     decision to which reference has been made seems to 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 :
                                                                                    E
             "With respect we do not doubt the correctness of the decision in
             Nilkanth Prasad's case 1962 Supp. (1) SCR 7'2PJ = AIR 1962 SC
             1135 which followed the decisions of different Constitution
,-           Benches of this Court".
                                                                                    F
     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
     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.
     1198-1'2PJ2 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 Authority and the appeal and writ petition filed against
    the order cancelling permits of the appellants also failed.

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

B           "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
c           the State Transport Undertaking 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
            9r ·notified route unless authorised so to do by the terms of the
D           scheme itself ....".

   The decision in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. The Mysore .
   Revenue Appellate Tribunal & Ors., (1975] 1 SCR 493, which was not
   approved in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore State
E Transport Appellate Tribunal, 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 Transport 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, re~ed
H   on observations in Adarsh Travels case (supra) and urged that whether a
                     NATARAJv. STATE(SAHAI,J.) .                       963.

scheme was for total or partial exclusion depended on interpretation of the A
scheme itself. According to him, a reading of the Scheme indicated that
since operators of inter-State route are not excluded from the Scheme, the
,·icw 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 State Road Transport Corporation v. The B
Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal & Ors., (1975) 1 SCR 493, by the
Constitution Bench. Even though the Bench in Mysore State Road Transport
Corporation v. 17ie Mysore Reve11ue Appellate Tribunal & Ors., {1975] 1 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 AdarsJ.
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 Adarsh 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.