A.P.S.R.T.C. versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 931 · Decided: 28-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Reference answered

Judgment (excerpt)

,,,_ 
A.P.S.R.T.C. 
A 
V. 
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND ORS. 
APRIL 28, 2005 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, D.M. 
B 
DHARMADHIKARI, ARUN KUMAR AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Motor. Vehicles Act, 1988: 
s.99-Nationalization of mofussil service-Exclusion of private C 
operators-Exception providing that existing town services operating on notified 
routes not to be affected-Effect of-Held, under the Scheme entire mofussil 
service is covered-There is complete exclusion of all private operators holding 
stage carriage permits on proposed routes as well as those holding such 
permits on routes overlapping completely or partially with the proposed route- D 
Under the Exception only existing operators, and not fresh applicants or 
future applicants, are eligible for permits. 
Appellant-Corporation framed a Schemes under s.99 of the Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1988 whereunder mofussil service in a particular region of 
the State was nationalized. However, under Clause 2 of the Note appended E 
to the Scheme, it was provided that the Scheme would not affect "the 
existing town service operating on the notified routes". Respondent No. 
3, not being an existing town service operator, applied for permanent stage 
carriage permit on a particular town service route. The Corporation 
objected contending that permit was sought on a portion of notified route F 
under the Scheme. The Regional Transport Authority rejected the 
application. But, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal held in favour 
of respondent No. 3. The Corporation challenged the order in a writ 
petition before the High Court and ultimately a Full Bench of the High 
Court held that town service route was not automatically covered under 
the Scheme which was specifically for mofussil service, and permits could G 
be granted for town service routes. 
The Corporation filed appeals before the Supreme Court. The Bench 
before which the appeals were listed for hearing, noticed the earlier 
decision of the Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport 
~1 
H 
932 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2005] 3 S.C.R. 
A Corporation v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors.* and felt that 
the issue be settled by a larger Bench. Therefore, reference was made to 
the Constitution Bench. 
On the questions : Whether, in view of the Scheme which covers 
mofussil service and provides for total exclusion of private operators 
B including operators on town service routes, and even routes overlapping 
with the notified mofussil service having been covered, it is permissible 
for ·Regional Transport Authority to grant permits to private operators 
on the notified town service routes or portions thereof; and 
whether Exception 2 in the note appended to the Scheme providing 
C that the Scheme shall not affect "the existing town services operating on 
the notified routes" relates only to existing town services operating on the 
notified routes so as to exclude fresh or future applicants for grant of 
permits: 
D 
Answering the reference, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Rule 258 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 makes 
it clear that no route shall be determined as both town and mofussil service 
route. The words "mofussil service" suggest that the service covers a long 
distance having several stages on the route. Town service, on the other 
E hand, as the words suggest, is normally a shorter route since it operates 
within the town itsel.f. In the instant case, it is not in dispute thl!t there is 
a valid Scheme with respect to the mofussil service for the particular region 
of the State. [937-C; 943-C-F) 
1.2. The object of the Scheme is to nationalize the entire service. 
F Under Clause 3 of the Scheme, the entire mofussil service is covered. 
"Service" is a term of wider connofation. In view of Clauses 4 and 5 of 
the Scheme, there is complete exclusion .of all other persons holding stage 
carriage permits on the proposed route as well as those holding stage 
carriage permits on the routes overlapping completely or partially with 
the proposed route. A combined reading of these clauses shows that the 
G Scheme excludes all private operators Thus, all private operators including 
those operating on town service routes are excluded, subject, however, to 
the exception. The conclusion of the Full Bench of the High Court that 
the town· services operating on the route, even though overlapping with 
mofussil services are entitled to permit under the Scheme, cannot be 
H accepted. [940-D-H; 941

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.