2002 (1) TMI 1263 - SC - Indian Laws

Repealed Act known as Kolar Pocket Scheme - The Scheme provided that the State Transport Undertaking shall operate services on all the routes to the complete exclusion of other private operators except that the existing permit holders on the inter-State route may continue to operate on such inter-State route, subject to conditions that their permits shall be rendered ineffective for the overlapping portions of the notified routes and that the existing operators whose permits overlap the notified portions between Bagepalli to Chelur and Pathpatya Cross only may continue to operate on such routes subject to conditions that their permits would be rendered ineffective for the overlapping portions.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether small portions falling within the limits of towns or villages on a notified route under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, are to be treated as route overlapping or intersection.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Overlapping vs. Intersection on Notified Routes:
The primary issue is whether small portions within towns or villages on a notified route should be treated as overlapping or intersection. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (appellant) argued that the route overlaps portions of the notified route under the Kolar Pocket Scheme, which mandates the complete exclusion of private operators. The Regional Transport Authority granted a stage carriage permit to the respondent, which was contested by the appellant. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal upheld the appellant's objection, but the High Court's Division Bench referred the matter to a Full Bench, which ruled that small portions within towns or villages should be treated as intersections, allowing the permit. This decision was challenged, leading to the present appeal.

2. Legal Framework and Precedents:
The judgment delves into the legal framework under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, detailing the process of formulating and approving schemes for the exclusion of private operators. The court referenced several precedents, including H.C. Narayanappa vs. State of Mysore, Nehru Motor Transport Co-operative Society vs. State of Rajasthan, and C.P.C. Motor Service vs. State of Mysore, which established that a scheme for total exclusion is a law under Article 13 and 19(6) of the Constitution, prohibiting private operators on notified routes.

3. Interpretation of 'Intersection':
The court examined the dictionary meanings of 'intersection' and concluded that the term must be understood in the context of the object and scheme behind Chapter IVA. The court cited Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd., emphasizing that when a word has multiple meanings, it should be construed in the context of the Act's provisions and legislative history. The court reiterated that an intersection means cutting across a notified route for onward travel, not traversing the same line, which would constitute overlapping.

4. Consistent Judicial View:
The court highlighted the consistent judicial view that once a scheme for total exclusion is approved, no permit can be granted on the notified route or portion thereof, except for intersections. The court referenced Adarsh Travels Bus Service vs. State of U.P., which settled the law that no permit can be granted on a notified route if a scheme prohibits such operation by private operators, except where a non-notified route intersects a notified route.

5. Error in Full Bench's Interpretation:
The court found the Full Bench's interpretation erroneous, as it allowed permits on small portions within towns or villages, undermining the scheme's objective of total exclusion. The court clarified that overlapping involves plying on the same line of travel on a notified route, regardless of the distance, while intersection means cutting across the notified route.

6. Public Interest and Legislative Action:
The court acknowledged the need for efficient transport services for the public and suggested that if the State Transport Undertaking fails to cater to public needs, the government could modify the scheme to allow private operators or amend the law to permit private operators on payment of royalty.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments and orders under appeal, remanding the matter to the Learned Single Judge of the High Court to decide within three months based on the principles stated. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →