C. KASTURI AND ORS. ETC . versus SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1085 · Decided: 31-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
, 
' 
• 
C. KASTURI AND ORS. ETC . 
v. 
SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY 
AND ANR. ETC. 
JANUARY 31, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND 
G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1964: 
A 
B 
c 
Rule 282(2) (ii)--Notified scheme-Town Service route-Not to extend 
more than 8 KMS. beyond limits of the Municipality of Town from which it 
starts-Nor could it extend to 8 KMS. overlapping on the notified route from 
niunicipal lintit~Administrative instrnction not override the sche1ne-Stage 
carriage holders of pemiits stand excluded and private operators cannot D 
operate on the notified area or route overlapping more than 8 .KMS. on the 
notified route. 
Administrative Law : 
Administrative instruction cannot overrided a scheme unless the E 
scheme is legally modified under the Act. 
Ram Krishna Vernia & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1992) 2 SCC 620; 
Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1985) Supp 3 
SCR 661; Smt Afsar Jahan Begum Etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. 
F 
etc., JT (1996) 1 SC 604 and A. Viswanathan v. State Transport Appellate 
Tribunal Pandicherry & Anr., [1987) 2 SCC 73, relied on. 
Nilkanth Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bi/tar, [1962) Supp 1 SCR 728, 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 356-57 
of 1986 Etc. Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.85 of the Andhra Pradesh 
G 
High Court in W.A. No. 434 and 431 of 1984. 
H 
1085 
r/ 
1086 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
A. Subba Rao, A. V. Rangam and A. Ranganadhan for the Appel-
lants. 
G. Ramaswamy, Sanjay Hegde, B. Parthasarathy, K. Ram Kumar, C. 
Balasubramaniam for the Respondents. 
B 
T.V.S. Chari and G. Prabhakar, (NP) for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
'-
Leave granted. 
T 
c 
These appeals raise a question : whether Rule 282(2}(ii) of the A.P. 
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964 would be read into .the notified route and given 
an interpretation extending 8 Kms. from the municipal limits of the town 
service or whether the conditions of the scheme and exceptions engrafted 
therein are strictly to be construed ? The facts are fairly in dispute. In the 
D first case, the appellant had obtained a temporary permit under Section 62 
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. 4 of 1939) (for short, the 
~ ' 
'repealed Act') which stands repealed by Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. But 
I 
we are concerned on the facts of this case with the interpretation of the 
scheme and the Rules under the repealed Act. Admittedly, the appellant 
has been running the vehicle on the town service, Tirupati, a Pilgrim Centre 
E of Lord Venkateswara Swamy known in north India as Balaji, in Andhra 
Pradesh obtaining renewals on temporary basis from time to time. We are 
informed that in other cases they are pakka stage carriage permit holders 
obtaining permits under Section 58 of the repealed Act. Chandragiri to 
{ 
Renigunta via Triupati is the notified approved route under Chapter IV A 
F 
of the repealed Act. The appellants had relied upon a memorandum issued 
by the Government dated November 9, 1981 in which it was stated that the 
town service stood extendible to a distance of 8 Kms. from municipal limits. 
When the appellants were prohibited to run their town service upto the 
extent of 8 Kms. on the basis of such memorandum, they filed writ petitions 
in the High Court. In Writ Petition No. 1995 of 1983, the learned single 
G Judge of the High Court held that by operation of the prohibitions con-
tained in the scheme in Notes 2 a,nd 3 thereof, the town service could not 
be extended upto a distance of 8 Kms. from the municipal limits the same 
being contrary to the scheme. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ 
..l.. 
petition. Similar cases met with the same fate. In W.A. Nos. 434 & 431/84 
and batch, the Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 30.10.85 
• 
H and in other cases on different dates, confirmed the same. 
... 
. 
T 
)... 
C. KASTURI v. SECRETARY REGNL. TPT. AUTHORITY 
1087 
Mr. A. Subba Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants 
A 
who led the batch, contended that Rule 282(2)(ii) expressly mentions that 
town service shall no construed to be extendible to the other limits of the 
municipality and so town service would encompass 8 Krns. from the 
municipal limits. Though it is notified route, the appellants are entitled to 
run their vehicles on the notified route upto a distance of 8 Kms. the same 
being a part of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.