Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by special leave against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Karnataka High Court in limine. The appellant, the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, operated stage carriage services on a notified route under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 between Hiriyur and V.V. Sagar. The Corporation objected to the renewal of a permit granted to the third respondent, a private operator, for the route Hiriyur to Chitradurga and back via V.V. Sagar, Hosadurga and Janakal, on the ground that the renewal authorised overlapping over three miles on the notified route. The Regional Transport Authority, Chitradurga, and the State Transport Authority, Bangalore, negatived the objection. The Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Corporation's appeal, relying on the view that the integrity of a scheme is not impaired if the overlapping distance is about five miles and if a condition not to pick up or set down passengers on the notified route is attached. The High Court dismissed the Corporation's writ petition in limine. The central legal issue was whether a permit or renewal could be granted to a private operator whose route traversed or overlapped any part or whole of a notified route, given that the Bangalore Scheme under Chapter IV-A provided for complete exclusion of private operators from notified routes. The Corporation contended that the scheme prohibited any overlapping and that the permit should be refused. The private operator relied on a recent Division Bench decision of the Supreme Court dated 17-5-1974 which took a contrary view, and argued that a short overlap with a condition not to pick up or set down passengers did not affect the integrity of the scheme. The majority of the Supreme Court, comprising P. Jaganmohan Reddy and A. Alagiriswami, JJ., allowed the appeal. It held that Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, provided a complete machinery for exclusion of private operators from notified routes. Relying on earlier authorities such as Y. S. Kondala Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Nilkanth Prasad v. State of Bihar, the majority reiterated that if a scheme prohibits operation on a notified route, no licence can be granted to any operator whose route traversed or overlapped any part or whole of that notified route. The Court also considered the definition of 'route' in Section 2(28-A) of the Act, as inserted by Act 56 of 1969, which defines route as a line of travel specifying the highway traversed between two termini. The majority held that where a private operator's application overlaps even a portion of a notified route, that application must be considered in light of the scheme. If the scheme contains a total prohibition, the application must be rejected. The Court found that the route granted to the third respondent overlapped the notified route and therefore no permit or renewal could be granted, regardless of the short distance or the condition prohibiting picking up or setting down passengers. Justice M. Hameedullah Beg dissented. He opined that the Bangalore Scheme had two classes of routes: class (a) with complete exclusion and class (b) with partial exclusion or exemptions for overlapping parts. Without evidence that the overlapping part fell under class (a), complete exclusion could not be inferred. He also emphasised that the amended definition of 'route' in Section 2(28-A) distinguished a line of travel from the highway and was intended to amend the law declared in Nilkanth Prasad, not merely declare it. Accordingly, he held that overlapping of some portions of route would not debar a private operator from plying on his own different route which was not notified. The final decision of the Court, by majority, was to allow the appeal and set aside the renewal of the permit for the overlapping route. The dissenting opinion by Beg, J. was recorded.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Chapter IV-A Scheme - Exclusion of Private Operators - Complete Exclusion on Notified Route - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Chapter IV-A, Section 68C, Section 68D(2) - Where a scheme under Chapter IV-A provides for total exclusion of private operators on a notified route, no permit or renewal can be granted to any private operator whose route traverses or overlaps any part of that notified route, however short the overlapping distance; the integrity of the notified scheme is affected even by overlapping under five miles or with a condition not to pick up or set down passengers on the overlapped route. Held that the permit renewal for Hiriyur to Chitradurga via V.V. Sagar overlapping the notified route Hiriyur to V.V. Sagar for three miles must be rejected. (Paras 618G, 625G, 626A-B) B) Motor Vehicles Act - Definition of Route - Route and Highway - Section 2(28-A) - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 2(28-A) - Route means a line of travel specifying the highway traversed between termini; where a private operator's application overlaps even a portion of notified route, it must be considered in light of the notified scheme; if total prohibition, application must be rejected. Held that the new definition does not equate route with road but requires that overlapping applications be tested against scheme conditions. (Para 622B-C) C) Precedent - Consistency with Earlier Decisions - Earlier Supreme Court decisions in Kondala Rao, Nilkanth Prasad etc. established that if prohibition exists on notified route, no licences can be granted to any operator whose route traversed/overlapped part/whole of notified route; a later Division Bench in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore Appellate Tribunal (C.As. Nos. 1755-1756 of 1968 decided 17-5-1974) took contrary view and was not reconcilable. Held that the majority followed earlier larger benches and departed from later Division Bench. (Para 622H) D) Dissent - Interpretation of Bangalore Scheme - Classification of Routes - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 68E - Bangalore Scheme contained 94 routes separately numbered; class (a) routes had complete exclusion but class (b) routes had exemption from exclusion for overlapping parts; without showing that overlapping part fell under class (a), complete exclusion cannot be inferred; State Transport Undertaking could seek modification under Section 68-E if intended complete exclusion. Held that the Division Bench decision of 17-5-1974 was not erroneous on this aspect. (Paras 629H, 632B-H) E) Dissent - Definition of Route - Amendment by Act 56 of 1969 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 2(28-A) - The amended definition of route in Section 2(28-A) distinguishes line of travel from highway and was intended to amend the law declared in Nilkanth Prasad's case, not merely declare it; consequentially earlier cases identifying route with road are inapplicable to the amended provision. Held that overlapping of some portions of route does not debar a private operator from plying on his own different route which is not notified. (Paras 634D-E, 637H, 638A-B, 639F, 640B, 642B)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a permit or renewal can be granted to a private operator whose route traverses or overlaps any part or whole of a notified route under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, particularly when the Bangalore Scheme provides for complete exclusion of other operators on notified routes.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court, by majority (P. Jaganmohan Reddy and A. Alagiriswami, JJ.), allowed the appeal and held that no permit or renewal could be granted to the third respondent because the route overlapped the notified route, even by three miles. Justice M. Hameedullah Beg dissented, holding that the Bangalore Scheme's class (b) routes did not impose complete exclusion for overlapping parts and that the amended definition of route did not debar a private operator from plying on a different non-notified route. The appeal was allowed by the majority.
Law Points
- Complete exclusion of private operators on notified routes under Chapter IV-A scheme
- no permit or renewal if route overlaps any part of notified route
- integrity of notified scheme not affected only by short overlap or condition not to pick up/set down passengers
- section 2(28-A) definition of route correlates line of travel with highway
- earlier decisions holding prohibition on overlapping are to be followed
- Bangalore scheme class (a) vs class (b) distinction
- amended definition intended to amend law declared in Nilkanth Prasad and distinguish route from road
