Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered two civil appeals by special leave arising from a judgment of the Mysore High Court which had set aside a permit granted by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and remanded the matter to the State Transport Authority. The dispute concerned the grant of stage carriage permits on the inter-State route from Bellary in Mysore to Manthralaya in Andhra Pradesh via Chintakunta. In August 1964, the two States had entered into a reciprocal agreement for services on this route. Subsequently, the Bellary Scheme, approved under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by the Mysore Government by notification dated April 18, 1964 and effective from May 7, 1964, provided for complete exclusion of operators other than the State Transport Undertaking on the Bellary to Chintakunta border portion. The Regional Transport Authority Bellary called for applications in August 1965 and in August 1966 granted permits to the appellant and respondent 7 for one trip each day. Appeals were filed before the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which remitted the matter to the Regional Transport Authority. The Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal then allowed the appellant's appeal and granted a permit for the inter-State route subject to the condition that no passenger would be picked up or set down on the overlapping notified portion of the Bellary scheme. The High Court, in writ petitions by the State Corporation and another, held that once a scheme provides for total exclusion on a route or portion, authorities under Chapter IV of the Act must not grant a permit contrary to the scheme, and remanded the matter. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the Bellary Scheme provided only partial exclusion and that the State Corporation had not complied with Section 20 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. The Court found that the Bellary Scheme was confined to an intra-State route from Bellary to Chintakunta and could be nationalised by the Mysore Government even though it overlapped an inter-State route. It held that the proviso to Section 68-D(3) requiring prior Central Government approval did not apply because the scheme did not deal with an inter-State route. Relying on T.N. Raghunatha Reddy v. Mysore State Transport Authority, it held that an approved scheme prevails over a reciprocal inter-State agreement. Following D.M. Thippeswamy v. Mysore Appellate Tribunal, the Court held that the scheme excluded all operators except inter-district operators and existing permit-holders on inter-State routes, and the appellant fell within neither exception. The Court also declined to revoke the special leave, finding no suppression of the dismissal of Thippeswamy's appeal because counsel had not relied on that case and there had been a subsequent clarification order. The appeals were dismissed and the High Court's remand order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Nationalisation of Intra-State Route - Approved Scheme Under Section 68-D May Nationalise Intra-State Route Even if It Overlaps Inter-State Route - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 68-D - Bellary Scheme confined to Bellary-Chintakunta route with termini within Mysore State; overlap with inter-State route Bellary-Manathralaya did not convert it into inter-State route scheme; State of Mysore could nationalise such portion without Central approval - Held that High Court correctly treated Bellary Scheme as exclusive on intra-State portion (Paras not mentioned). B) Motor Vehicles Act - Inter-State Route and Central Government Approval - Proviso to Section 68-D(3) Not Applicable to Scheme Confined to Intra-State Route - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 68-D(3) proviso - Since Bellary Scheme did not deal with inter-State route, previous approval of Central Government was not required - Held that no question of proviso applicability arose (Paras not mentioned). C) Motor Vehicles Act - Effect of Approved Scheme Over Reciprocal Inter-State Agreement - Scheme Prevails Over Inter-State Agreement - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 68-D - Followed T.N. Raghunatha Reddy v. Mysore State Transport Authority, [1970] 3 SCR 780 - Held that scheme approved under Section 68-D prevails over reciprocal inter-State agreement in respect of overlapping route (Paras not mentioned). D) Motor Vehicles Act - Exclusion of Operators Under Bellary Scheme - Total Exclusion of All Operators Except Two Exceptions - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 68-D - Inter-district operators and existing permit-holders on inter-State routes were only exceptions; appellant fell in neither; partial exclusion argument rejected following Thippeswamy v. Mysore Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1972 SC 1674 - Held that authorities could not issue permit for route overlapping nationalised route (Paras not mentioned). E) Practice and Procedure - Revocation of Special Leave - No Suppression of Material Fact Established - Supreme Court Rules (Practice) - No reference to Thippeswamy case was made in special leave arguments; affidavit by counsel explained non-relevance; subsequent clarification order existed - Held that no case for revocation of special leave made out (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a permit could be granted for the overlapping portion of an inter-State route when an approved scheme under Section 68-D totally excluded private operators on that portion; whether the Bellary Scheme related to inter-State routes requiring Central approval; whether the scheme prevailed over reciprocal inter-State agreement; whether special leave should be revoked for non-disclosure of dismissal of Thippeswamy's case
Final Decision
Appeals dismissed; High Court order remanding to State Transport Authority upheld; revocation of special leave declined; appellant not entitled to permit on overlapping portion; Bellary Scheme totally excludes operators other than excepted categories; scheme prevails over inter-State agreement; Central Government approval not required for intra-State scheme.
Law Points
- Approved scheme under Section 68-D of Motor Vehicles Act
- 1939 prevails over inter-State agreement
- total exclusion under scheme excludes all operators except inter-district and existing inter-State permit-holders
- proviso to Section 68-D(3) requiring Central Government approval not applicable to intra-State scheme
- permit cannot be granted for overlapping portion contrary to scheme
