G.T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY Vs STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY .
Bench: T.S. THAKUR,FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,S.A. BOBDE,R. BANUMATHI,UDAY UMESH LALIT
Case number: C.A. No.-004480-004480 / 1998
Diary number: 5194 / 1998
Advocates: Vs
R. AYYAM PERUMAL
Page 1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4480 OF 1998
G.T. Venkataswamy Reddy …Appellant VERSUS
State Transport Authority & Ors. …Respondents With
C.A. No.4481/1998, C.A. Nos.7195-7197/2001, C.A. No.2782/2002, C.A. No.7299/2002, C.A. No.3605/2003, C.A. No.3606/2003, C.A. No.3633/2003, C.A. Nos.3731-3733/2003, C.A. No.3853/2003, SLP(C) Nos.22621-22622/2015
J U D G M E N T
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
1. This reference to this Constitution Bench was
made by a Division Bench of this Court in their order dated
22.07.2003 made in the case of R. Raghuram Vs. P.
Jayarama Naidu and others reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC
361, which reference though was initially made to a Three
Judges Bench, was subsequently referred to the Constitution
Bench by the Three Judges Bench led by the Honourable The
Chief Justice of India vide order dated 01.12.2004. As the
issues raised and argued before us were common, on the
question referred, we heard arguments in common.
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 1 of 42
Page 2
2. We heard the arguments of Mr. K.K. Venugopal,
learned senior counsel for the appellant in the
C.A.No.3606/2003, Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior counsel for
the appellant in C.A.No.4480/1998, Mr. A. Mariarputham,
learned senior counsel for the appellant in
C.A.Nos.7195-7197/2001, Mr. Amit Singh Chaddha, learned
senior counsel for the appellant in C.A.3853/2003 and Mr.
Raju Rammachandran, learned senior counsel for the
respondent(s) in C.A.No.4480/1998. 3. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel made
his leading submissions, followed by Ms.Suri and Mr. Chaddha
as well as Mr. Mariarputham, learned senior counsels for the
appellants, while Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior
counsel addressed arguments on behalf of the respondents in
these appeals. 4. Mr. K. K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the
appellant in C.A.3606 of 2003 made a brief reference to the
order dated 22.07.2003, by which the present reference
came to be made to the Constitution Bench and the
subsequent order dated 01.12.2004 as well. Learned senior
counsel in his submissions, fairly pointed out that the issue
concerned in this reference has to be considered by referring
to the decisions reported in Karnataka State Road
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 2 of 42
Page 3
Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. B.A.Jayaram and
others - 1984 (Supp) SCC 244 (hereinafter referred to as
‘JAYARAM’), Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs.
M.A.Egappan - 1987 (2) SCC 47 (hereinafter referred to as
‘EGAPPAN’), Adarsh Travels Bus Service and another
Vs. State of U.P. and others – (1985) 4 SCC 557
(hereinafter referred to as ‘ADARSH TRAVELS’),
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation,
Bangalore Vs. Karnataka State Transport Authority,
Bangalore and others -1987 (Supp) SCC 648
(hereinafter referred to as ‘KSRTC’) and R.Raghuram
(supra) (hereinafter referred to as ‘RAGHURAM’). 5. The learned senior counsel made a detailed
reference to the list of dates commencing from 1963-64
when the initial permit in the case of appellant in C.A.3606 of
2003 viz., permit No.13/63-64 for the Route Bangalore to
Hosur via., Madivala, Chandapura, Anekal, Thali,
Denkanikottah and Keelamangalam came to be issued, which
permit was originally granted in favour of one Mr. C.
Rajasekaran and subsequently transferred to Smt. G. Kavitha
Gopinath on 12.03.1998 and even thereafter transferred in
favour of the present appellant Smt. A.M. Kalaivani Ammal.
The learned senior counsel also referred to the application
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 3 of 42
Page 4
made by the appellant on 10.01.1985 to the State Transport
Authority (STA), Bangalore for grant of four additional singles
and one additional vehicle by the order dated 10.01.1985,
the Authority granted two additional singles with inclusion of
one additional vehicle. Thereafter by referring to the
subsequent proceedings initiated at the instance of the
appellant, the learned senior counsel referred to the order of
the STAT, Madras as well as that of the order of the learned
Single Judge in C.R.P.No.553 of 1988 and the order of the
Division Bench in W.A.No.750 and 780 of 2002 dated
23.03.2002 pursuant to which the present appeal came to be
filed. 6. The learned senior counsel referred to Section
48(3)(xxi), Section 57(8) and Section 63 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”),
which pertain to the statutory prescriptions concerning grant
of variation as well as the requirement for the counter
signature respectively. The learned senior counsel also fairly
referred to the provisions viz., Sections 68A, 68B, 68FF
falling under Chapter IV-A of the Act while making his
submissions. 7. The learned senior counsel while formulating his
submissions, contended that the reference itself was based
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 4 of 42
Page 5
on incorrect provisions because, there is no conflict or
inconsistency between ‘JAYARAM’ and ‘EGAPPAN’ since the
existing permit in ‘JAYARAM’ was an exempted one on the
Nationalized Route and variation of that permit by added
singles and additional bus was an issue, while in ‘EGAPPAN’,
the operator was not one of the persons exempted under the
Nationalized scheme and on the other hand he was operating
on a non-scheme route. The learned senior counsel then
contended that ‘ADARSH TRAVELS’ does not deal with
Section 57(8) of the Act which concerns grant of variations,
but dealt with the interpretation of an existing scheme and as
to whether an operator on that Route could operate with
corridor restrictions. The learned senior counsel submitted
that the ratio in ‘ADARSH TRAVELS’ being that the
condition of the Scheme would cover the rights of the
operator and therefore the said case is not applicable to the
case on hand. As far as the case in ‘RAGHURAM’ is
concerned, learned senior counsel submitted that the said
case was not of any consequence, because the review
petitioner in that case wrongly proceeded on the basis as to
what was included was an approved Scheme, while in fact it
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 5 of 42
Page 6
was only a draft scheme, which would attract different
consequence. 8. Lastly, he contended that the judgment in
‘JAYARAM’, ‘RAGHURAM’ and ‘KSRTC’ support the case of
the appellant, which concerns grant of variation on a
nationalized Route, that the appellant was operating from
1965 and the variation was granted in 1985 and, therefore,
his operation should not be disturbed in public interest. 9. Ms. Suri, learned senior counsel for the appellant
in C.A.No.4480 of 1998, after referring to the list of dates
rightly formulated the questions as under (i) Whether variation is permissible in a notified
scheme route? and (ii) Whether the Tamil Nadu Act disentitles counter
signature of interstate permit variation?
10. The learned senior counsel after making reference
to ‘EGAPPAN’ judgment, submitted that the appellant’s
permit was covered by a draft scheme. As regards the
alleged conflict between ‘JAYARAM’ and ‘EGAPPAN’, the
learned senior counsel submitted that since the scheme was
at the draft stage, the position was different. As far as the
implication of Section 68FF of the Act was concerned, the
learned senior counsel submitted that the same would bar
any grant of permit which would include variation by way of
additional singles or additional vehicles.
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 6 of 42
Page 7
11. Mr. Mariarputham, learned senior counsel for the
appellant in C.A.Nos.7195-7197 of 2001, submitted that the
question as regards the implication by reason of the Tamil
Nadu Act can be left open for consideration by the regular
Bench since the question referred to the Constitution Bench
does not cover the said issue. 12. Mr. Chaddha, learned senior counsel for the
appellant in C.A.No.3853 of 2003 after making reference to
the scheme concerning the case of the appellant in that case,
submitted that the said scheme does not cover the case, in
as much as the argument is that any interstate agreement
even entered subsequently, will stand excluded and by
referring to the object of the scheme in the case of the said
appellant and after referring to the relevant laws in the
agreement, learned senior counsel sought to distinguish the
case of the appellant. 13. As against the above submissions, Mr. Raju
Ramachandran, learned senior counsel for the respondent in
C.A.4480 of 1998 submitted that Section 68B of the Act is
the complete answer to the argument of the learned counsel
for the appellant in C.A.3853 of 2003. The learned senior
counsel further submitted that having regard to the
implication of the provisions contained in Chapter IV-A of the
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 7 of 42
Page 8
Act, the scheme is the law and if the scheme does not permit
any variation, then the same would not be permissible. 14. Having heard learned senior counsel for the
appellants and the learned senior counsel for the respondent,
we proceed to answer the reference as under. 15. By order dated 22.07.2003, the Division Bench of
this Court after noting the reference made in the case of
R.Raghuram (supra) to a Constitution Bench and on finding
that later the matter was then referred to a three Judge
Bench, and subsequently before the three Judge Bench, the
petition itself abated on account of the death of the petitioner
in that case and since the conflict continued to remain in
these cases, the matter was referred to a Bench of three
Judges. Subsequently, when the above appeal along with the
connected matters was listed before a three Judge Bench
headed by the then Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India, by an
order dated 01.12.2004, the said Bench again referred the
case back for hearing before a Constitution Bench. That is
how these appeals are listed before us. 16. When we refer to the order dated 22.07.2003, we
find an apparent conflict in the view of the law taken in
‘JAYARAM’ and ‘EGAPPAN’. It was also noted therein that
the Constitution Bench decision in ‘ADARSH TRAVELS’,
wherein, similar question came to be considered and decided
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 8 of 42
Page 9
was distinguished by a three Judge Bench of this Court in
‘KSRTC’. The case which got abated was reported in
‘RAGHURAM’. When we read the order dated 22.07.2003,
which is the order by which initially the reference came to be
made to a three Judge Bench which was subsequently
referred to the Constitution Bench by the subsequent order
dated 01.12.2004, except making a reference to the
apparent conflict as between ‘JAYARAM’ and ‘EGAPPAN’ as
well as the distinction in ‘ADARSH TRAVELS’ made in
‘KSRTC’, there was no specific terms of reference made in
either of the two orders. However, when we refer to the case
which got abated viz., ‘RAGHURAM’, while dealing with an
identical issue, this Court while referring the review to a
Constitution Bench has specified the terms of reference which
can be culled out and can be taken as the Terms of Reference
and the same reads as under: “Whether on the publication of an
approved scheme, the number of trips of the
vehicles of the existing operations can be
increased both by number of trips and
vehicles by granting the variation of a permit
even when the existing operators are allowed
to carry on their business as on the date of
the publication of the scheme”.
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 9 of 42
Page 10
A little later we will refer to the relevant provisions, which
necessitated the said reference.
17. It is worthy to note that before formulating the
said question for reference to a Constitution Bench, the
learned Judges culled out the ratio decidendi in the
Constitution Bench decision of ‘ADARSH TRAVELS’ and how
the case in ‘JAYARAM’ run counter to the said ratio and
consequently, it was held that the ruling in ‘JAYARAM’ was
impliedly overruled in ‘ADARSH TRAVELS’. 18. Keeping the said perception which weighed with
this Court in ‘RAGHURAM’ to make a reference to the
Constitution Bench, we can discern from the said order of
reference that the conflict with reference to which the
present reference came to be made by the orders dated
22.07.2003 and 01.12.2004 were in all fours covered by the
reference made in ‘RAGHURAM’ to the Constitution Bench.
Therefore, though the said reference stood abated because of
the demise of the appellant therein, the question of law
referred to the Constitution Bench rightly survived and the
said question requires to be answered in this reference. 19. In order to answer the above referred question,
we have to make note of the principles which were noted in
the judgments reported in ‘JAYARAM’ (supra), ‘ADARSH
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 10 of 42
Page 11
TRAVELS’ (supra), ‘EGAPPAN’ (supra) – ‘KSRTC’
(supra) and ‘RAGHURAM’ (supra), apart from the
relevant provisions falling under Chapter IV and IV-A of the
Act. We shall make a reference to the decisions in the
forefront before making a reference to the Statutory
provisions and thereafter analyze the question for
consideration and render our decision. 20. Before doing so, at the very outset, we want to
make it clear that we are not dealing with any individual facts
involved in these appeals as we are not concerned with
various intricated facts involved in the different appeals.
After we answer the reference all the appeals will be listed
before the regular Bench for disposal based on the answer to
the question referred before us. With that prelude, we
proceed to first analyze the decisions mentioned above. 21. ‘JAYARAM’ (supra) is the starting point for this
controversy, in which the legal questions framed and the answer
rendered can be set out. The question considered by the said two
Judge Bench decision in ‘JAYARAM’ has been formulated in
paragraph 9 which reads as under:
“9. On the above rival contentions, two main questions arise for our consideration, namely,
(1) Whether sub-section (8) of section 57 creates a legal fiction by reason of which the grant of an application for variation in the
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 11 of 42
Page 12
conditions of a permit in respect of a matter set out in that sub- section results in the grant of a new permit ?
(2) Whether an increase in the number of trips or the number of vehicles above the maximum specified in an existing inter-State stage carriage permit would be inconsistent with the provisions of the said Scheme ?”
22. Before answering the above questions the learned
Judges made a detailed reference to the various provisions
contained in Chapter IV and IV-A of the Act. Thereafter, by making
a particular reference to Section 57(8) of the Act, the learned
Judges in their analyses observed as under in paragraph 15 :
“15. …….If the effect of sub-section (8) of section 57 were as contended for by the Appellant, that is, if the said sub section (8) were to create a legal fiction by which an application for variation of the conditions of a permit of the nature referred to in that subsection is to be deemed to be an application for the grant of a new permit and such variation when granted would result in the grant of a new permit, then clearly by reason of the prohibition contained in section 68-FF, the granting of such application would be inconsistent with the provisions of the said Scheme and would not be permissible in law. Considerable emphasis were placed on behalf of the Appellant on the words “shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit” occurring in the said sub-section (8) and on the basis of this phraseology, it was submitted that an application for variation of a condition of a permit referred to in subsection (8) of section 57 was by a fiction of law put on the same footing as an application for the grant of a new permit and it, therefore, followed as a corollary that such an application if granted would result in the grant of a new permit.”
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 12 of 42
Page 13
23. Thereafter, the learned Judges referred to sub-section
1 to 10 of Section 57 of the Act in detail and then stated as under
in paragraph 16:
“16. ……….Sub-section (8) comes
immediately after sub- sections (3) to (7) and
when read in the context of these sub-sections
and in juxtaposition with them, it is clear that
the legislative intent in enacting that subsection
was to prescribe the procedure to be followed
when an application for variation of the
conditions of a permit referred to in that
sub-section is made, this procedure being the
same as is laid down in sub sections (3) to (7)
with respect to an application for a new stage
carriage permit or a new public carrier's permit.
It is for the purpose of providing that the
procedure to be followed in the case of an
application made under sub-section (8) is to be
the same as the procedure to be followed in the
case of an application for a new permit that
sub-section (8) uses the words "shall be treated
as an application for the grant of a new permit."
By the use of these words what sub-section (8)
does is to incorporate in it the provisions of sub-
sections(3) to (7). This is a very different thing
from enacting a legal fiction………” (Underlining is
ours)
24. While stating the law as above, the learned Judges
sought reliance upon the decision reported in M/s Shiv Chand
Amolak Chand v. Regional Transport Authority & Anr. -
(1983) 4 SCC 433 wherein a similar conclusion was arrived at
while considering an application for variation by way of extension
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 13 of 42
Page 14
of the route concerned covered by a scheme. The learned Judges
therefore took the view ultimately in paragraph 17:
“17……. Assuming, therefore, that an application for variation of the conditions of a permit referred to in sub-section (8) of Section 57 is to be deemed by a fiction of law to be an application for the grant of a new permit the question to which we must address ourselves is for what purpose is such an application for variation deemed to be an application for grant of a new permit. Reading sub-sections (3) to (8) of Section 57 as a whole, it is clear that the only purpose is to apply to such an application for variation the procedure prescribed by sub-sections (3) to (7) of Section 57 and not for the purpose of providing that when the application for variation is granted, the permit so varied would be deemed to be a new permit……….” (Underlining is ours)
25. Having thus answered the first question by holding
that application for variation dealt with under Section 57(8) of the
Act cannot be construed as an application for a new permit, the
second question was answered in the said decision as under in
paragraph 18:
“18. Even though when the condition of a
permit is allowed to be varied on an application
made under sub-section (8) of Section 57, the
permit so varied is not a new permit, the
question still remains whether in the case of an
existing inter-State permit exempted under the
said Scheme an increase in the number of trips
or the number of vehicles allowed to be
operated under such a permit would be
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 14 of 42
Page 15
inconsistent with the provisions of the said
Scheme. We fail to see any inconsistency
between an increase in the number of vehicles
or trips allowed under such a permit and the
provisions of the said Scheme. So far as the
portions of the inter State route covered by the
said Scheme are concerned, the permits of the
existing permit-holders have been rendered
ineffective. Further, by the said Scheme as
modified, the existing permit-holders are not
allowed to pick up or set down passengers on
these portions of the notified routes. Whether
one vehicle or more traverse these portions or
whether the same vehicle traverses such
portion more than once cannot any manner
affect the services operated by the Appellant
on such portions since no passengers are
allowed to be picked up or set down or such
portions. All that would happen is that these
vehicles, in the course of their inter-State
operation would traverse these portions of the
notified routes without in any way operating as
stage carriages for such portions.”
26. Having thus noted the question posed and the answer
rendered in the said decision, what is to be further noted is that
though a detailed reference to the provisions contained in Chapter
IV-A was made in the said decision, before reaching the ultimate
conclusion in paragraph 18, we find that there was no discussion
as to the overriding effect of Chapter IV-A on Chapter IV as well as
the freezing effect of Section 68FF of the Act under the scheme
with reference to the existing permit holders and their operations.
We therefore wish to deal with the said aspect in detail in the later
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 15 of 42
Page 16
part of this judgment to find whether the said view expressed in
‘JAYARAM’ can be approved or disapproved. 27. With that we come to the Constitution Bench decision
in ‘ADARSH TRAVELS’, the question posed for consideration is
noted as under in the very first paragraph which is to the following
effect:
“…..The question for our consideration is, where a route is nationalised under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, whether a private operator with a permit to ply a stage carriage over another route but which has a common overlapping sector with the nationalised route can ply his vehicle over that part of the overlapping common sector if he does not pick up or drop passengers on the overlapping part of the route? The answer to the question really turns on the terms of the scheme rather than on the provisions of the statute, as we shall presently show.”
28. The Constitution Bench while dealing with the said
question, made a detailed reference to the provisions contained in
Chapter IV-A and while making reference to Section 68C of the
Act, observed as under in paragraph 5:
“5. ……The policy of the legislature is clear from Section 68-C that the State Transport Undertaking may initiate a scheme for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service to be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking in relation to any area or route or portion thereof. It may do so if it is necessary in the public interest. The scheme may be to the exclusion, complete or
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 16 of 42
Page 17
partial, of other persons or otherwise. The scheme should give particulars of the nature of the service proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and such other particulars as may be prescribed.”
29. Thereafter in paragraph 6 it was held as under:
“ 6. It is thus seen that while the provisions of Chapter IV-A are devised to override the provisions of Chapter IV and it is expressly so enacted, the provisions of Chapter IVA are clear and complete regarding the manner and effect of the “take over” of the operation or road transport service by the State Transport Undertaking in relation to any area or route or portion thereof. While on the one hand, the paramount consideration is the public interest, the interest of the existing operators are sufficiently well- taken care of and such slight inconveniences to the travelling public as may be inevitable are sought to be reduced to a minimum……...” (Emphasis added)
30. A further reference can be made to the emphasis
made by the Constitution Bench on the implication of Section 68C,
Section 68D(3) and Section 68FF of the Act in the light of the
definition of the expression ‘Route’ in Section 2(28-A) of the Act in
paragraph 7. It will be useful to refer to the said part of the
judgment which is to the following effect:
“7. A careful and diligent perusal of sec.68-C, sec.68-D(3) and sec.68FF in the light of the definition of the expression 'route' in sec.2(28-A) appears to make it manifestly clear that once a scheme is published under sec.68-D in relation to any area or route or portion thereof, whether to
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 17 of 42
Page 18
the exclusion, complete or partial of other persons or otherwise, no person other than the 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 vehicle 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 route or area on the mere ground that the permit as originally granted to him covered the notified route or area….…………….……. The question is one of weighing in the balance the advantages conferred on the public by the nationalisation of the route C-D against the inconveniences suffered by the public wanting to travel straight from A to B. On the other hand, it is quite well known that under The guise of the so called 'corridor restrictions' permits over longer routes which cover shorter notified routes or 'overlapping' parts of notified routes are more often than not misutilised since it is next nigh impossible to keep a proper check at every point of the route. It is also well known that often times permits for plying stage carriages from a point a short distance beyond one terminus to a point a short distance beyond another terminus of a notified route have been applied for and granted subject to the so-called corridor restrictions, which are but mere ruses or traps to obtain permits and to frustrate the scheme. If indeed there is any need for protecting the travelling public from inconvenience as suggested by the learned counsel we have no doubt that the State Transport Undertaking and the Government will make a sufficient provision in the scheme itself to avoid inconvenience being caused to the travelling public.” (Emphasis added)
31. The Constitution Bench ultimately answered the
question posed by it by holding as under in paragraph 8:
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 18 of 42
Page 19
“8…… It is impossible to accept the argument that only the termini have to be looked at and the rest of the highway ignored in order to discover a route for the purposes of the Motor Vehicles Act. Equally without substance is the plea that if an operator does not pick up or set down any passenger between the two points of the common sector he cannot be said to be plying a state carriage between these two points. The argument is entirely devoid of substance for the simple reason that the operator does charge the passenger for the distance travelled along the highway between these two points also……..”
32. With that we shall now refer to the so-called
conflicting judgment viz., ‘EGAPPAN’ (supra). The facts in
the said case are noted in paragraph 2, which requires to be
noted and the same is extracted as under:
“2. The facts of the case are these. On June 30, 1976, as stated earlier, the approved scheme was published under Section 68-D of the Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette in respect of the route Madurai to Kumuli authorising the appellant to run its stage carriages on that route. By that approved scheme it was proposed to exclude completely all other persons from operating their stage carriage services under permits covering the entire route, referred to above except those persons mentioned in Annexure II to the said scheme without prejudice to any future modifications, variations etc. of their permits. The operators whose names had been mentioned in Annexure II to the scheme were persons who were existing operators on the different sectors of the notified route on the date of the publication of the scheme. The
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 19 of 42
Page 20
respondent was not one of the those persons who was running a stage carriage service on any part or sector of the route in question on the date of its publication. Hence, his name was not mentioned in Annexure II to the scheme. He was then operating a stage carriage service under a permit issued under the Act on the route Batlagundu to Usilampatti which was a non-scheme route. On February 28, 1981 he was able to secure the variation of the said permit from the Regional Transport Authority which enabled him to operate on the route measuring 21.4 Kms. from Usilampatti to Checkanurani, which formed a sector of the notified route. The appeal filed against the said order was dismissed and no revision petition was filed against the order dismissing the said appeal. On 23.12.1982 he obtained from the Regional Trans- port Authority a second variation of his permit under which he was authorised to operate his stage carriage service over a distance of 16.6. Kms. from Checkanurani to Madurai which was also a part of the notified route. An appeal filed against that order was dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. A revision petition was filed under Section 64-B of the Act (as in force in the State of Tamil Nadu) before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision petition. This appeal by special leave is filed against the above order of the High Court.” (Underlining is ours)
33. Thereafter, while dealing with the provisions
contained in Chapter IV-A, it was held as under in
paragraph 4:
“4………... In the context in which Section 68-F(1-D) appears we find it difficult to agree that the application for variation of a permit by
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 20 of 42
Page 21
including the whole or any part of route in respect of which a scheme is published under Section 68-C of the Act can be treated as falling outside the mischief of Section 68-F(1-D) of the Act. There is no justification to limit the application of Section 68-F(1-D) of the Act to only applications for fresh permits or their renewal and to leave out applications for variation of a permit by the inclusion of the route or a portion of the route in respect of which a scheme is published. The fact that the applicant is the holder of a permit to operate a stage carriage on another route whose variation he is seeking by the inclusion of a route or a part thereof in respect of which a scheme is published under Section 68-C of the Act ought not to make any difference. The principle underlying Section 68-F(1-D) of the Act is that the number of services on such a route should be frozen on the publication of a scheme under section 68-C of the Act. It is not, however, necessary for us to pursue the applicability of Section 68-F(1-D) of the Act to the present case any further since it is brought to our notice that the very same route is the subject-matter of the approved scheme published under Section 68-D of the Act on June 30, 1976 to which we have already adverted. The approved scheme, as mentioned earlier, excludes the operation by others of stage carriage services on the above mentioned route Madurai to Kumuli except those whose names are mentioned in Annexure II attached thereto. The respondent is not protected by any provision in the approved scheme itself. He cannot be permitted to operate on any sector of the notified route in question in view of the provisions contained in Sections 68-C, 68-D and 68-FF of the Act. The effect of these provisions has been summarised by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Adarsh
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 21 of 42
Page 22
Travels Bus Service and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, [1985] 4 S.C.C. 557. Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for the Constitution Bench observed at page 566 thus: …..” (Emphasis added)
34. The very same paragraph which we have referred
to in the Constitution Bench was extracted and the law was
declared to the effect that once an approved scheme is
published, the number of service on such a route is frozen on
the publication of the scheme under Section 68-C of the Act.
It is also worthwhile to note that the word of caution
expressed in ‘ADARSH TRAVELS’ in para 7 of that judgment
has been found to have been abused in ‘EGAPPAN’ by
getting two variations by a non-scheme operator successfully
and was able to operate without any hindrance. 35. The last of the decision which requires to be noted
in the present context is the one reported in ‘KSRTC’
(supra). That was also a case where the route was covered
by an approved scheme under Chapter IV-A of the Act. The
respondents private operators applied for variation of the
conditions of their respective permits who were granted the
variation, which resulted in permission to operate more trips
in an application filed under Section 57(8) of the Act. The
High Court declined to interfere and this Court after referring
to the above referred to two judgments merely stated that
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 22 of 42
Page 23
the law laid down in ‘ADARSH TRAVELS’ does not apply to
the facts of that case and without any discussion much less
detailed discussion, dismissed the appeal. 36. Having thus noted the various decisions covering
this issue, we only wish to make a detailed reference to
Section 57(8) of the Act and some of the provisions
contained in Chapter IV-A of the Act viz., Section 68-B, 68-C,
68-D, 68-E, 68-F(1D) and 68-FF of the Act, which are as
under:
“57(8) An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or, in the case of a stage carriage permit, by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum, or by altering the route covered by it, or in the case of a contract carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, by increasing the number of vehicles covered by the permit, shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit.
Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of a stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route or in any area to increase the frequency of the service so provided, without any increase in the number of vehicles.”
*****
68B. Chapter IVA to over ride Chapter IV and other laws:- The provisions of this Chapter and the rules and orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 23 of 42
Page 24
inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter IV of this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.
68C. Preparation and publication of scheme of road transport service of State transport undertaking. Where any State transport undertaking is of opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run and operated by the State transport undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise, the State transport undertaking may prepare a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and such other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed, and shall cause every such scheme to be published in the Official Gazette and also in such other manner as the State Government may direct.
68D. Objection to the scheme. (1) On the publication of any scheme in the Official Gazette and in not less than one newspaper in regional language circulating in the area or route which is proposed to be covered by such scheme,-
(i) any person already providing transport facilities by any means along or near the area or route proposed to be covered by the scheme;
(ii) any association representing persons interested in the provision of road transport facilities recognised in this behalf by the State Government ; and
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 24 of 42
Page 25
(iii) any local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the area or route proposed to be covered by the scheme lies, may, within thirty days from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette, file objections to it before the State Government.
(2) The State Government may, after considering the objections and after giving an opportunity to the objector or his representatives and the representatives of the State transport undertaking to be heard in the matter, if they so desire, approve or modify the scheme.
(3) The scheme as approved or modified under sub-section (2) shall then be published in the Official Gazette by the State Government and the same shall thereupon become final and shall be called the approved scheme and the area or route to which it relates shall be called the notified area or notified route :
Provided that no such scheme which relates to any inter-State route shall be deemed to be an approved scheme unless it has been published in the Official Gazette with the previous approval of the Central Government.”
68E. Cancellation or modification of scheme:- (1) Any scheme published under sub-section (3) of section 68D may at any time be cancelled or modified by the State transport undertaking and the procedure laid down in section 68C and section of 68D shall, so far as it can be made applicable, be followed in every case where the scheme is proposed to be cancelled or modified as if the proposal were a separate scheme:
Provided that the State Transport Undertaking may, with the previous approval of the State Government, modify without following the procedure laid down in section 68C and section 68D, any such scheme relating to any route or area in respect of which the road transport services are run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking to the
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 25 of 42
Page 26
complete exclusion of other persons in respect of the following matters, namely:-
(a) increase in the number of vehicles or the number of trips;
(b) change in the type of vehicles without reducing the seating capacity ;
(c) extension of the route or area, without reducing the frequency of the service ; or
(d) alteration of the time-table without reducing the frequency of the service.]
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the State Government may, at any time, if it considers necessary in the public interest so to do, modify any scheme published under subsection (3) of section 68D, after giving,-
(i) the State Transport Undertaking, and
(ii) any other person who, in the opinion of the State Government, is likely to be affected by the proposed modification,'
an opportunity of being heard in respect of the proposed modification.
68F(1-D) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (lA) or subsection (lC), no permit shall, be granted or renewed during the period interevening between the date of publication, under section 68C of any scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme, in favour of any person for any class of road transport service in relation to an area or route or portion thereof covered by such scheme :
Provided that where the period of operation of a permit in relation to any area, route or portion thereof specified in a scheme published under section 68C expires after such publication, such permit may be renewed for a limited period, but the permit so renewed shall
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 26 of 42
Page 27
cease to be effective on the publication of the scheme under sub-section (3) of section 68D.]
*****
68FF. Restriction on grant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route, 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 be, shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme;
Provided that where no application for a permit has been made by the State Transport Undertaking in respect of any notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, 'as the case may be, may grant temporary permits to any person in respect of such notified area or notified route subject to the' condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of that area or route.”
37. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that in the
decision in ‘JAYARAM’ and ‘ADARSH TRAVELS’, this Court has
extensively covered the scheme of the provisions contained both
under Chapter IV as well as Chapter IV-A of the Act. Therefore,
the said part of the above referred to decisions can be noted and
followed without making any further reference to the scheme of
the provisions contained in those chapters. However, for the
purpose of deciding this reference, it is necessary for us to refer to
the above provisions which we have extracted and analyse the
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 27 of 42
Page 28
prescriptions contained in those provisions in order to give our
answer to the questions referred. 38. (i) In the first instance, we take up sub-section (8) of
Section 57 of the Act. A close reading of the said sub-section
shows that an application for variation of any permit in the case of
a stage carriage, for the purpose of increasing the number of trips
as well as number of vehicles covered by the permit, with which
we are concerned, mandatorily to be treated as an application for
the grant of a new permit. Going by the caption of Section 57 of
the Act, one may tend to think that it is merely a procedure when
anyone apply for grant of permit, which includes stage carriage
permit. But, when we make a close reading of the sub-sections (1)
to (7), we can presently demonstrate how such provisions
mandates compliance of various specific requirements, which are
intricately connected, with the grant of a new permit, which are to
be ‘mutatis mutandis’ to be complied with even in respect of an
application for variation, which is governed by sub-section (8).
Sub-section (2) stipulates that an application for variation in a
stage carriage permit should be made not less than six weeks
before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall take
effect. Therefore, when an application for variation like the present
one with which we are concerned viz., increasing the number of
trips or increasing the number of vehicles, the applicant must
specify the date from which he desires such variation to take
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 28 of 42
Page 29
effect and that filing of the application should be mandatorily
made by giving not less than six weeks time gap from the desired
date of the applicant for the varied condition to take effect.
(ii) Under sub-section (3), once the Regional Transport
Authority receives an application for variation of a stage carriage
permit, statutorily the Authority should make the application
available for inspection at the office of the Authority and should
also publish the application or the substance of it in the manner
prescribed under the Rules together with the notice of the date
before which representation in connection with such application for
variation should be submitted. In that respect, period of 30 days
should be prescribed by the Regional Transport Authority from the
date of the publication apart from specifying the time and the
place where the application along with the representation
whatever received would be considered by him. We are not
concerned with the proviso to sub-section (3) which has nothing to
do with the consideration of an application for variation.
(iii) When we refer to sub-section (4), here again we find
that the mandatory requirement for consideration of any
representation made in connection with an application for
variation, should have been submitted before the appointed date
and also ensured that a copy of such representation was
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 29 of 42
Page 30
simultaneously furnished to the applicant who applied for the
variation.
(iv) Under sub-section (5) when any representation as
provided for in sub-section (3) is made as stipulated under
sub-sections (3) and (4), then it is mandated on the Regional
Transport Authority to dispose of the application at a public
hearing where the applicant, as well as, the person who made the
representation is entitled for an opportunity of personal hearing
either in person or by a duly authorized representative. We are
not concerned with sub-section (6), which pertains to contract
carriage permits.
(v) Under sub-section (7), in the event of the Regional
Transport Authority rejecting an application for variation, he
should give reasons in writing for such rejection.
39. Therefore, a conspectus consideration of sub-sections
(1) to (5) and (7) along with sub-section (8) shows that an
application for variation when treated as an application for the
grant of a new permit, all the mandatory requirements which are
to be followed for the grant of a new permit have to be followed in
letter and spirit even with reference to an application for variation
viz., in the case on hand for either increasing the trips as well as
for increasing the number of vehicles. It is not as if such
procedures prescribed in sub-sections (1) to (7) barring
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 30 of 42
Page 31
sub-section (6) such procedures are to be followed casually and
that the same would ultimately result in grant of variation
irrespective of compliance or non-compliance of such rigorous
procedures. If the prescription of the time limit, specified in
sub-section (2) is not complied with, it may result in instantaneous
invalidation of the application at the very threshold. Similarly, if
the Regional Transport Authority failed to follow the statutory
prescription in the matter of publication of such an application, by
following the time limit and the other prescribed procedure under
the Rules, then again, the consideration of the application itself
may not take place until such prescriptions are meticulously
followed and complied with. Then again, under sub-section (4)
anyone who wants to make a representation as against the grant
of variation will have to strictly follow the time limit viz., filing of
such representation before the appointed date as notified by the
Regional Transport Authority and that while filing such
representation, it must be ensured that simultaneously a copy was
served on the applicant, failure to follow such prescription will
automatically result in rejection of the right of hearing or right of
consideration of any such representation with reference to the
application for variation. 40. The requirement of giving a public hearing coupled
with requirement of personal hearing to the applicant as well as
the person making the representation is yet another prescription
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 31 of 42
Page 32
which again shows that very serious consideration should be given
to the application for variation in as much as it will have very
serious impact on the operation of the vehicle in the route in
question in the event of such variation being granted, anyone
living in that area can voice his grievance or support before the
Regional Transport Authority in such a public hearing. In other
words the very purpose of the requirement of providing a public
hearing in sub-section (5) shows that an application for variation
is not merely concerned with the applicant alone or anyone who
wants to raise his objections by way of representation to any such
application for variation. But, it will open up the scope for every
member of a public in the locality concerned to raise his voice in
the public hearing which may have serious repercussions in the
event of the variation being granted or not granted, which the
Regional Transport Authority would be otherwise bound to consider
before he pass an order in the application for variation by giving
adequate reasons for grant or otherwise of such application for
variation. Similarly, the representatives may be another exempted
operator or the State owned Corporation, who can raise their
objection and point out how the grant of variation will not serve
the public at large or create inefficiency or uneconomical and
result in lack of coordination. 41. Having thus analysed the entire Section 57 of the Act
barring sub-section (6) and sub-sections (9) and (10), it must be
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 32 of 42
Page 33
stated that though in sub-section (8), it is stated that an
application for variation should be treated as an application for the
grant of a new permit, in effect, such consideration of an
application for variation would be nothing but an application for
the grant of a new permit as every required step for the grant of a
new permit will have to be applied and scrupulously followed in
order to consider an application for variation and for its ultimate
disposal. 42. Therefore, we are not in a position to approve of the
conclusion in ‘JAYARAM’ to the effect that the application for
variation in spite of such specifications and requirements to be
complied and carried out under various sub-sections of Section 57
of the Act, it is merely a fictional requirement and will not amount
to requirement strictly to be followed and applied in the case of
grant of a new permit. We therefore overrule such a conclusion
reached in ‘JAYARAM’. We also state that the contra opinion
expressed in ‘RAGHURAM’ will hold good. 43. With that when we come to the other Sections with
which we want to make an analysis, in the foremost, reference to
Section 68-B of the Act has to be made which falls under Chapter
IV-A and which states that all the provisions contained in Chapter
IV-A shall have supervening effects on any inconsistent provisions
contained in Chapter IV or any other law for the time being in
force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.
Under Chapter IV Sections 42 to 68 of the Act have been listed. In
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 33 of 42
Page 34
so far as, Section 57(8) of the Act, as has been noted by us and
the manner in which we interpret it, we can safely hold that there
will be no inconsistency with any of the provisions contained in
Chapter IV-A. We can therefore safely proceed that the said
Section 57 will apply in all force even in respect of the prescription
contained in the provisions under Chapter IV-A viz., Section 68A to
68I of the Act. 44. Keeping the said broad statutory prescription vis-à-vis
Section 57 of the Act, when we proceed to analyse Section 68C of
the Act, we find that the formulation of a scheme is to be prepared
and published by a State Transport Undertaking in respect of the
services to be provided in any area or route to be covered. The
underlying object for such formulation of a scheme for its
preparation and publication, must be for providing an EFFICIENT,
ADEQUATE, ECONOMICAL and PROPERLY coordinated road
transport service with the paramount consideration of public
interest and such scheme should be prepared and published.
Section 68C of the Act, therefore, at the very inception of the
formulation of a scheme by a State Transport Undertaking, should
have the basic consideration of efficient, adequate, economical
and properly coordinated transport service in public interest. Once
such a scheme is formulated with the above avowed objects in
mind and is notified, under Section 68D, on the publication of such
a scheme in the official gazette as well as in the newspaper in the
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 34 of 42
Page 35
regional language circulating in the area or route, which is
proposed to be covered by such scheme, every person who is
already providing transport facility in that area or route or any
association representing persons interested in the provision of
road transport facilities recognized by the State as well as the local
authority or police authority who are also located in that area or
route, will be entitled to raise their objections or their
representations within 30 days from the date of publication to the
State Government. 45. Under sub-section (2) of Section 68D of the Act, the
State Government after considering the objections and after giving
an opportunity of hearing to the objector or his representative as
well as the representatives of the State Transport Undertakings
can either approve the scheme as proposed or give a modified
scheme. Under Section 68E of the Act, the scheme can be
cancelled in the form in which it was approved or can be modified
by following the very same procedure prescribed under
sub-sections 68C and 68D of the Act. However, the State Transport
Undertaking with the previous approval of the State Government
can modify the scheme without following the procedure laid down
in Section 68C and 68D of the Act under the proviso to Section
68E. That apart under sub-section (2) of Section 68E of the Act,
the State Government is fully empowered to modify any scheme
published under sub-section (3) of Section 68D of the Act after
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 35 of 42
Page 36
giving an opportunity of hearing to the State Transport
Undertaking, as well as, to any other person who in the opinion of
the State Government is likely to be affected by the proposed
modification. Once the approved scheme comes into effect, under
Section 68F of the Act, the State Transport Undertakings can be
issued with the required permits. 46. Section 68FF of the Act is an important section which
requires to be noted with some deeper scrutiny. Section 68FF
creates a restriction on grant of permits in respect of notified area
or notified route. A close reading of the said provision discloses
that where an approved scheme as stipulated under Section
68D(3) of the Act in respect of an area or a route is published,
then, it prohibits grant of any permit except in accordance with the
provisions of this scheme. The substantive part of Section 68FF
therefore makes it clear that once the approved scheme comes
into play, then, there will not be any scope for grant of any permit
in that area or the route covered by the scheme, except what is
specifically permitted or provided under that scheme itself. By
way of an analogy, it can be stated that where, under the scheme
while the State Transport Undertaking alone is exclusively
permitted to operate the service in any particular area or route
and even while providing for such exclusive operation by State
Transport Undertaking, if the operation by any existing permit
holder is saved either fully or partially that as rightly stated in
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 36 of 42
Page 37
‘RAGHURAM’ and ‘EGAPPAN’, such operation by other private
operators gets frozen and as was held by us earlier, while
interpreting Section 57 (8) of the Act that application for variation
will be nothing but an application for grant of a new permit.
Therefore, even in respect of protected operation under the
scheme of any existing operator, as on the date of the approved
scheme, he will have to restrict his operations to the extent to
which he was permitted as on that date and the manner in which
such operation was permitted and not beyond. 47. Once things get frozen, the frozen stage can be
changed only by way of a permitted process. Here, when by
virtue of Section 68FF of the Act, the permit stood frozen, as on
the date the scheme was published, then, if the said frozen stage
is to be altered or modified, the provision by which such
modification or alteration can be effected can be only by applying
Section 68E, which is the legally permissible manner in which such
frozen stage can be altered or modified. Any other manner in
which the said frozen stage is sought to be altered or modified,
that is totally prohibited under the statutory provisions. Therefore,
if under the scheme, if the permit gets frozen, within the
prescriptions contained under the scheme and if a variation is to
be considered for that permit either by way of increase in the
number of trips or addition of vehicle without any modification or
alteration effected under Section 68E of the Act, it will be wholly
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 37 of 42
Page 38
prohibited under the provisions falling under Chapter IV-A and
consequently, such variation applied for can never even be
considered by any of the authorities. That will be the
consequential effect of the application of Section 68FF of the Act
and other relevant provisions falling under Chapter IV-A. In our
considered opinion, any other interpretation would run contrary to
the prescription contained in Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles
Act. 48. While interpreting Section 68FF of the Act, therefore
we are convinced that that is the only manner in which an
interpretation to the said Section 68FF can be made and in no
other manner. The only other alternate available is what is
provided under Section 68E of the Act which again is within the
jurisdiction of the State Transport Undertaking or the State
Government under sub section 1 or 2 as the case may be. 49. As we are not called upon to answer any other
question, we confine ourselves to the question viz., on the
publication of an approved scheme whether the number of the
trips of the vehicles of the existing operators can be increased by
granting the variation of the permit even when the existing
operators are allowed to carry on their operation on the date of
the publication of the scheme as it was existing as on that date.
To the said question, one other aspect to be considered is along
with the number of trips can such existing operator aspire to seek
for increasing the number of vehicles as well should also be added.
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 38 of 42
Page 39
In fact, when the question of conflict as between ‘JAYARAM’ and
‘EGAPPAN’ was noted while making the present reference to the
Constitution Bench in the order dated 22.07.2003, the conflict
really pertain to the variation applied for both by way of increase
in trips as well as increase of vehicles. 50. Having analysed the above referred to decisions and
the statutory provisions, before rendering our final answer to the
question referred to this Constitution Bench, it will be worthwhile
to make a reference and list out the legal propositions which we
are able to discern based on our detailed consideration in this
reference: (a) Chapter IV-A supersedes any inconsistent
provisions in Chapter IV. (b) The policy of the Legislature is clear from
Section 68C that the State Transport
Undertaking may initiate a scheme for the
purpose of providing an efficient, adequate,
economical and properly coordinated road
transport service to be run and operated by the
State Transport Undertaking in relation to any
area or route or portion thereof. It may do so if
it is necessary in the public interest. (c) Grant of variation under Section 57(8) will be as
good as grant of a new permit. (d) Section 57(8) is controlled by Section 68FF
falling under Chapter IV-A, by virtue of the
superseding effect of Section 68B also falling
under Chapter IVA (e) Once a scheme formulated under Section 68D
gets approved under 68D(3) of Chapter IVA,
then all the permits in the route / area covered
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 39 of 42
Page 40
by the scheme will get frozen by virtue of
operation of Section 68FF. (f) The effect of Section 68FF can be altered /
modified / cancelled only in the manner as
provided for under Section 68E and in no other
manner. (g) By virtue of the above, either a grant of a new
permit or the variation of an existing permit of
private operator cannot be ordered in respect of
an area or route covered by an Approved
Scheme. (h) Increase in the number of trips or vehicles which
were being run under the existing exempted
permit under a Scheme will amount to grant of a
new permit to operate one more Stage Carriage
which is not permissible under Section 68FF. (i) The proposition of law, laid down by this Court in
‘JAYARAM’ impliedly stood overruled in
‘ADARSH TRAVELS’. (j) The economy and coordination, two of the
factors, which govern the Approved Scheme, will
be seriously infringed if the variation is to be
granted of the existing permit condition. (k) Even if there is an interstate agreement under
Section 63 of the Act for increasing the number
of trips, such an agreement cannot override the
provisions of Chapter IV-A by virtue of Section
68B of the Act. Section 63 being in Chapter IV
of the Act, the Scheme approved under Chapter
IV-A will prevail over it. (l) The Approved Scheme will exclude the operation
of other stage carriage services on the Route /
Area covered by the Scheme, except those
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 40 of 42
Page 41
whose names are mentioned in the Scheme and
to the extent to which such exception is allowed. (m) The provisions in Chapter IV-A are devised to
override the provisions of Chapter IV and it is
expressly so enacted, the provisions of Chapter
IV-A are clear and complete regarding the
manner and effect of the “takeover” of the
operation of a road transport service by the
State Transport Undertaking in relation to any
Area or Route or portion thereof (ADARSH
TRAVELS). (n) A necessary consequence of those provisions is
that no private operator can operate his vehicle
on any part or portion of a notified area or
notified route unless authorized so to do by the
term of the scheme itself. He may not operate
on any part or portion of the notified Route or
Area on the mere ground that the permit as
originally granted to him covered the notified
Route or Area (ADARSH TRAVELS).
51. Having regard to the above propositions, which we are
able to arrive at, we hold that the judgment reported in
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation,
Bangalore Vs. B.A. Jayaram and others - 1984 (Supp)
SCC 244 is no longer a good law and the decision reported in
Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. M.A. Egappan
- (1987) 2 SCC 47 stands approved which is in tune with the
Constitution Bench decision reported in Adarsh Travels Bus
Service and another Vs. State of U.P. and others -
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 41 of 42
Page 42
(1985) 4 SCC 557 and the observations made in R.Raghuram
Vs. P. Jayarama Naidu and others – 1990 (supp) SCC
361 stands approved. 52. The reference is answered as above. Having thus
answered the reference, we direct the Registry to list the cases
before the regular Bench for disposal by applying the principles set
down in this judgment wherever it is applicable.
.………………………………………..C.J.I. [T.S. Thakur]
..….………………………………………...J. [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]
..….………………………………………...J. [S.A. Bobde]
..….………………………………………...J. [R. Banumathi]
..….………………………………………...J. [Uday Umesh Lalit]
New Delhi; July 19, 2016
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 42 of 42