TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all portion or portions falling within the limits of towns or villages on a notified route under Chapter IVA of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, since repealed (hereinafter referred to as the Repealed Act ), are to be treated as a route overlapping or intersection" ? Learned counsel for the parties have addressed arguments only in Civil Appeal No. 1341/90 which substantially arises out of the judgment of the Full Bench of Karnataka High Court rendered in Writ Appeal No. 403/1988. Learned counsel for the parties jointly prayed to examine the correctness of the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench and the decision in Civil Appeal No. 1341/1990 would govern the fate of other cases. We accordingly notice the facts which have given rise to Civil Appeal No. 1341/1990. As far back in the year 1966, the then Mysore State Transport Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as the Undertaking) framed a scheme under Section 68-C of the Repealed Act known as Kolar Pocket Scheme (in short the Scheme ), for exclusive plying of the vehicle by the Undertaking on the routes falling within the Scheme. The erstwhile Mysore government, after having considered the Scheme as proposed, and the representations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it can be granted on the notified route or portion thereof, and in that view of the matter the appeal preferred by the appellant was allowed and the grant of permit in favour of the respondent was set aside. The respondent thereafter preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The Learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The respondent thereafter preferred a writ appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, after hearing of the matter was of the view that the question involved in the appeal required to be decided by a Full Bench. Consequently, the question "whether small portion or portions falling within the limits of a town or village on a nationalised route, are to be treated as a route overlapping or intersection" was referred to a Full Bench of the High Court for its opinion. The Full Bench, by its opinion dated 21.7.88, answered the question as follows: A small portion/portions falling within the limits of a town or a village on a nationalised route (notified route) are to be treated as only an intersection of the nationalised route and not as overlapping an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ub-section (2) of the Section 68D provided that the State Government after considering the objections may approve or modify the scheme. Sub-section (3) of Section 68D further provided that the scheme as approved or modified, to be published in the official gazette and on publication in the gazette, the scheme shall become final and shall thereafter be called the approved scheme. Section 68F empowered the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, to grant to the State Transport Undertaking the necessary permit on its applying for the same in pursuance of an approved scheme. Section 68FF further provided that where a scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of Section 68D in respect of any notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may, shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. The consequences of an approved scheme under Chapter IVA was that if the scheme was for total exclusion, no person other than the State Transport Undertaking can operate on the notified route or area except as provided in the scheme itself. In other words ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is means that even in those cases where the notified route and the route applied for run over a common sector, the curtailment by virtue of the notified scheme would be by excluding that portion of the route or, in other words, the road common to both. The distinction between route as the notional line and road as the physical track disappears in the working of Chapter IVA, because you cannot curtail the route without curtailing a portion of the road, and the ruling of the Court to which we have referred, would also show that even if the route was different, the area at least would be the same. The ruling of the Judicial Committee cannot be made applicable to the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Chapter IVA, where the intention is to exclude private operators completely from running over certain sectors or routes vested in State Transport Undertakings. In our opinion, therefore, the appellants were rightly held to be disentitled to run over those portions of their routes which were notified as part of the scheme. Those portions cannot be said to be different routes, but must be regarded as portions of the routes of the private operators, from which the private operators stood ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving been decided on particular facts of its case but did not approve it. However, the decision in Mysore State Transport Corporation vs. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal (supra) was expressly not approved and whereas the decision in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mysore State Road Transport Appellate Tribunal (supra) was approved. The Constitution Bench settled the law by laying down that once a scheme is for total exclusion prohibiting private operators from plying stage carriages on a whole or part of a notified route, no permit can be granted on the notified route or portion thereof. After adverting to the settled law, we shall now proceed to consider the question that falls for our consideration. Learned counsel for the appellant, S/Shri G.L. Sanghi, Senior Advocate and K.R. Nagaraja, Advocate contended that in view of the terms of the Scheme, grant of the permit for purpose of plying on the same line of the portion of the notified route which falls within the limits of town or village is overlapping and not an intersection. Learned counsel for the respondent, Sh. N.D.B. Raju, Advocate supported the reasoning given in the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of that word. In such a situation, the word has to be construed in the context of the provisions of the Act and regard must also be had to the legislative history of the provisions of the Act and the scheme of the Act." Following the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, (supra) we are, therefore, of the view that the expression intersection has to be understood in the light of the object and the Scheme behind Chapter IVA of the Repealed Act. The object and the scheme behind Chapter IVA of the repealed Act being that once a scheme for total exclusion of private operators for a route formulated by a State Transport Undertaking is approved by the government and is published in the official gazette, no permit can be granted to private operators other than the State Transport Undertaking on a notified route or portion thereof except in the terms of the scheme. This Court in Adarsh Travels Service and another vs. State of U.P.and others (supra) while dealing with Civil Appeal Nos.164-166 of 1982 even after finding that there was very insignificant portion of the route on which the appellants held stage carriage permits, was included in a notified route yet this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an approved scheme under Chapter IVA which provided for total exclusion of private operators on the notified route or portion thereof and 2) while employing the expression intersection in the said decision this Court has explained what the expression intersection meant. Further this Court in the said decision in very clear terms indicated that in view of consistent view of this Court no permit can be granted to operate on a notified route or portion thereof if a scheme prohibit such operation by a private operator and the only exception is where a private operator holding permit on non-notified route has to intersect a notified route. This decision explained that an intersection of a notified route does not amount to traversing or overlapping the notified route because of the prohibition contain in a scheme applies to a whole or part of the route on the highway on the same line of the route. It was further clarified that an intersection cuts across the notified route and does not permit traversing the same line of travel on a notified route. The last line of the passage extracted from decision in Mysore State Transport Corpn. (supra) is very relevant and explains what this Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land in the centre and a private operator in order to go from non-notified route to another non-notified route has to make a semi-circle of a notified route. In that case also, it would be not overlapping, but it would be an intersection because it only cuts across the notified route because of size of crossing or traffic regulations. Merely because a private operator has to traverse on the line of a notified route for 5 km or for 1.5 km only is no ground to dispense with the mandate of law. Such an overlapping also cannot be sustained on the ground it relates to a small town. If such a view of law as propounded by the Full Bench is to be accepted, it is difficult to be applied where a notified route passes through bigger towns where involvement is of 10 to 20 km within that town. The view taken by the full bench that where traversing on a notified route is necessary to continue journey on a non-notified route could be regarded as an intersection is an erroneous view of law. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to enforce rule of law and not pass order or direction which is contrary to what has been injuncted by law. For the aforesaid reasons, we a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
