LexK. VENKAMMA versus THE GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
562
K VENKAMMA
v.
THE GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
April 14, 1977
[\I. R. KRISHNA !YER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.l
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Whether a route who.'ie tennirii lie wilhi11
the
sanze state but lrhich traverses in its course one or more other states be desig-
nated as "inter state"
route-"[nter State Route"-Meaning of-Whether tlie
proposed Nationalisation sc!te1ne of Nellore-Ra1napuram route passing over
a short distance of 8 K.M. through Tamil Nadu invalid for want of approval
of the Central Govern1nent under s. 68-D(3)-Motor l"ehiCles Act, 1939 Ss. 2
28(A), 63(1)(4), 68-D(3) and S. 20 of the Road Transport Corpvrntiom
(Central Act) Act-Scope of.
The Nellore-Ramapuram route passing over a short distance of 8 .K.111.
through Tan1il Nadu was proposed to be nationalised by the Andhrai Pradesh
Governntent. The appellant an existing private operator on the route challenged
the scheme on the ground that the route being an inter-state route, non-
compliance wilh S. 68-D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 aborted the
Nationalisa·tion. The High Court held that the decisive test turned on \vhether
both the termini fall within the same state and it did in this case and so
on question of inter-state route arose.
On appeal by certificate the court
HELD : (l) (a) The route Nellore-Ramapuram is an inter-state route; (b)
the Scheme of Nationalisation is operative even in the absence of the previous
approval of the Central Government so far as the portions which fall within
Andhra Pradesh are concerned
and {c)
the
nationalisation cannot become
effective over the strip in Tamil Nadu and private operators may still be per-
mitted to ply their services over that strip by the concerried authority within
Tamil Nadu State, but (d) The Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corporation
may ply its buses over the Tamil Nadu enclave even without counter signature,
exemption having been granted in that behalf by the 2nd proviso to S. 63 ( 1 )
of the Motor Vehicles Act.
[567H, 568 A-Bl
(2) The definition of 'Route' in S. 2(28A) of the Act is not a notional
line "as the crow flies'' but the actual highway as a motor vehicle traYer~es
from one ternlinus to ainother.
A route is transformed into an inter-state
one, if the highway it covers passes through more than one state. An inter-state
route may l;ie of the categories either connecting two states or traversing t\vo
or more states. [564 D-E]
(3) Ordinarily-not invariably-the two termini test is ai working solution
and not an inflexible formation.
The terinini test
may
lead
to
strange
results, fatal to federal ideas.
A route which originates in Srinagar, runs
down South to Kanyakumari and rises North to end again in Kashmir, com-
pleting a Bharat Darshan, cannot sensibly be called an interstate one, \vith-
out doing violence to language, geography and federalism.
And in the absence
of a str.-~utory definition of inter-state route non-violence to English and con-
formanr:e to commonsense dictate the adoption of the
conventional n1eaning
that if a route traverses more than one state it is inter-state. [564 B-C, D]
(4) Undoubtedly, where the termini fall in different states the route
is
inter-state.
But that does not exclude other categories of inter-state route
such as where it crosses a state other than the originating state although
gets back into it later. If the territory of more than one state is covered even
if both the termini eventually fall within the same stnte, the route is inter
not intra-state.
[564H, 565Al
•
j
K. VENKAMMA v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Krishna Iyer, J.)
563
Kazan Singh [1974) 2 S.C.R. 562; Aswatha11arayan v. State i 19661 1 SCR
87 op. 100-101. explained.
A
(5) If the whole of the route lies within a single state it is intra. state
and not inter-state, even though the road over which the route lies runs
beyond the borders of that single state as national highways do.
It is ele-
mentary that there can be inter-state routes which run into or through more
than one state. A part of that long route rnaiy itself be a separate route and
B
may fall wholly \Vithin a single state in which case the former may be
inter-state while the latter will be an intra-state route.
[565G-H, 566A]
(6) 1'here can be no doubt that the scheme notified by one State will, even
in the case of an inter-state route, operate to the extent it lies within that
State.
Its extra-territorial effect depends onExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.