9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Overlapping of Routes 2. Jurisdiction of Regional Transport Authority 3. Provisions of the Bangalore Scheme 4. Interpretation of the term "Route" 5. Renewal of Permits Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Overlapping of Routes: The primary issue was whether the renewal of a permit for a route that overlaps a notified route by three miles is permissible. The Mysore State Road Transport Corporation (the appellant) objected to the renewal of the permit for the third respondent on the grounds that it would authorize overlapping on the notified route. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the integrity of a scheme is not impaired if the overlapping portion is about five miles and if a condition not to pick up or set down passengers on the notified route is attached. The Supreme Court found that any route or area, either wholly or partly, can be taken over by a State Undertaking under any scheme published, approved, and notified under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Jurisdiction of Regional Transport Authority: The appellant argued that the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to grant the renewal of the permit which overlaps the notified route. The Supreme Court held that if a scheme prohibits private transport owners from operating on the notified area or route or any portion thereof, the Regional Transport Authority cannot renew the permit of such private owners or give any fresh permit in respect of a route that overlaps the notified route. The question is whether the scheme read as a whole prohibits the private owners from operating on any of the notified routes. 3. Provisions of the Bangalore Scheme: The Bangalore Scheme, as approved under Section 68D(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, included "6 services between any two places therein" and the transport services were to be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking to the complete exclusion of other operators. The Supreme Court noted that the scheme's integrity is not affected if the overlapping is under five miles or because a condition has been stipulated in the permit that the operators will not pick up or set down any passengers on the overlapped route. The appellant's contention that the scheme prohibited any overlapping was upheld, and the renewal of the permit was deemed invalid. 4. Interpretation of the term "Route": The term "route" was interpreted in light of Section 2(28A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which defines "route" as "a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another." The Supreme Court noted that the distinction between "route" and "road" is relevant in the context of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court held that overlapping of routes does not necessarily mean traversing the same line, as an intersection cannot be said to be traversing the same line, as it cuts across it. 5. Renewal of Permits: The renewal of the permit for the third respondent was challenged on the grounds that it overlapped the notified route. The Supreme Court found that the renewal was invalid as it violated the provisions of the notified scheme. The court directed the Regional Transport Authority to comply with the requirements of the scheme in respect of any permit granted or in respect of renewal of any such permit made in favor of the third respondent during the pendency of this appeal. Separate Judgment by Beg, J.: Beg, J., in his separate judgment, emphasized the importance of setting out facts with sufficient particulars to enable the High Court to exercise its writ issuing prerogative powers correctly. He noted that the Bangalore Scheme was ambiguous and that the failure to specify the names of private operators in the scheme indicated that they were not considered by the framers of the scheme to be plying on any of the notified routes. He concluded that the mere overlapping of some portions of a route would not debar a private operator from plying on his own but different route which is not notified at all. Beg, J. would have dismissed the appeal with costs.
|
