D. PAPIAH versus MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 28 · Decided: 18-12-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
28 
D. PAPIAH 
v. 
MY~ORE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUl'iAL & ORS. 
December 18, 1975 
IV. R. KRISHNA IYER, A. C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.J 
Motor Vehicles Act, __1939-Section 
45(1)-Juri.sdic1io11 
to 
1-:ra11t 
inter~ 
regional permits, when the proposed route or area falls i1t two or 111ore regions 
lying within the same State vests either with the Regional Transport Authority 
of the region in which the 111ajor portion of the proposed rou.te or area lies, or 
lVith the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed ta 
keep the vehicle or vehicles, in case the:. portion of the proposed route or a1"e11 
in each of the regions is approxi1nately equal-Meaning of the tenn "area" in 
the first proviso to s. 45(1)-Whethe.lt' "motorable tract in the region" or geo-
graphical area". 
Section 45(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, a general provision regulat-
ing applications for inter-regional route-permits within a State requires an appli-
cation to be made to the appropriate Regional Transport Authority mentioned-
fn the proviso thereto namely, either to the Regional Transport Authority of the 
region in \Vhich the major portion, o( the proposed route or area lies or to the 
Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to keep the 
vehicle or vehicles in case the portion of the proposed ronte or area in each 
of the regions are approximately equal. 
The c1ppcllant applied for a contract carriage permit that \Vould be valid' 
throughout the St<ite of Karnataka, \vhich meant that he proposed 
to 
use 
his vehicle in all the nineteen regions, to the Regional Transport 
Authority, 
1'.·tandya, \Vho granted him on 8-2-1972 a contract ca1Tiage permit valid for the 
entire State of Karnataka. The permit was granted as Mandya region has. more 
motorable roads than any other district in the State. 
On appear preferred by 
the State Road Transport Corporation, taking the view that geographically 
'.\Iandya region was smaller' in area and, as such, the jurisdiction of the Regional 
Transport Authority, Mandya was ousted, the 'permit granted to the appellant 
\Vils cancelled by thfl StHte Transport Appellate Tribunal by its 0,rder dated 
19-8-1972, resulting in a \\Tit proceedings before the 
Karnataka High Court 
\vhich \Vas dismissed. 
On appeal by Special Leave, the Court, 
HELD : ( 1) The word "route" which has been used in association \Vith 
"area specifically notified by the S:ate Government". 
However. the terms. and 
''a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor 
vehicle between one terminus and another". 
Section 2(1) defines "area" as 
'·area specifically notified by the State Government". 
However. the terms and 
expressions defined in s. 2 will apply only if there is nothing repugnant in the 
subject or context. 
The first proviso to- s. 45 ( 1) speaks of the route or area 
proposed in an application for a permit and, as such. there can be no question 
of the State Government specifying the area. 
The definition 
of "are<i" 
in 
section 2( 1) has therefore no relevance in this contrx1. 
[31 B-01 
• 
(2) S. 45 uses both the v,:or<ls "route" and "area" whichev>'r is applicable in 
Y 
a given case. 
A routa'. as defined is a line of travel between two termini on a 
high'.Y·ay, but the idea of a route as a notional lincl that the definition suggests, 
has not been consistently maintained in the Act. 
[31 D-E] 
(3) A route may mean not only the notional line of travel between one ter-
minus and another, but also the area of the route over which the motor vehicles 
ply, yet the two terms are not interchangeable. 
"A route is an area plus so1ne-
thing more." This "something" is the notional line of travel between the two 
termini \Vhich distinguishes a route from an area sin1pliciter. 
The first proviso 
to s. 45( 1) speaks of "route or area" apparently making a distinction behveen 
i 
D. PAPIAH v. MYSORE S.T.A.T. (Gupta, J.) 
2·9 
them to cover applications relatable to either. A contract carriage does not 
ply along a fixed "routa or routes" but over an "area" which is why an appli-
cation for a contract carriage permit has to contain a statement as to the pro-
posed area. [31 G-HJ 
Dosa Satyanaraya11an1urty etc. v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Trans-
port Corpn., (1961] 1 S.C.R. 642 (644); C. P. C. Motor Serrice, 
Mysore v. 
The State of Mysore, (1962] Supp. (1) S.C.R. 717 (725); C. P. Sikli Regular 
Motor Se
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.