KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE versus B. A. JAYARAM AND OTHERS

Citation: [1984] 2 S.C.R. 768 · Decided: 31-01-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
0 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
768 
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT 
CORPORATION, BANGALORE 
v. 
B. A. JAYARAM AND OTHERS 
January 31, 1984 
[D. P. MADON AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.J 
Motor Vehicles.Act. (Act IV of }939) Section 57(8) Interpretation of-
Whether the section creates any /ega/ fiction-Grant of an applica_lion for varia· 
tio1is in conditions of permit, whet lier results in grafit of a new permil-Exisiing 
inter-state permit holders exempted under the approved scheme of nationalisation 
-Grant of request for increase in number of trips or tiumber of vehicles is not 
inconsistent with the provisions of the scheme-Motor Vehicles Act S cc/ion 68FF 
read with section 57(8) explained. 
On February 2, 1966, the Respondent No. 1, B. A, Jayaram had been 
granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, a stage carriage per-
mit .on the inter-state route Cuddapah in the State of Andhra Pradesh to 
Bangalore in the Karnataka State, which was duly countersigned by the State 
Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh. On 10.1.1968, the Mysore (Karanataka) 
State granted its approval under section 68(0)(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act 
1939, to a scp.eme, popularly known as the "Kolar Pocket Scheme", to nationa: 
lize passanger transport service between Ba"ngaIOre and various places in the 
Kolar District, as also certain routes within the Kolar District, covering 87 
inter-state routes referred to in its appendix. Under clause 4 of· the "Kolar 
Pocket Scheme", the existing permit holders oil the inter-state routes, were per-
mitted to continue to oper3.tf: such inter-state routes subject to the conditions 
that their permit shall be rendered ineffective for the overlapping portions of 
the notified routes. 
The route between Bangalore and Royalpad in the State of Karnataka 
forme_d part of the route between Bangalore and Cuddapah and was covered 
by the Scheme, with the result that the First Respondent's permit foe the said 
portion of the Bangalore Cuddapah route becam_e ineffective and consequent 
tha_t tho vehicles operated by him could not either pick up or set down passen-
. gers on the Bangalore-·Royalpad portion of the Bangalore cuddapah route 
though they could traverse the said portion. On January 24, 197 31 the first 
respondent made an 
ap~lication to. the Second Resoondent the Karnataka· 
State Transport Authority for varying the conditions of the stage carriage per-
1nit granted to him by increasing the number of trips on the Bangalore Cuddap-
pah route from one trip per day to two trips -per- day so as to eliminate one. 
overnight halt at either or the two termini. The said application having been 
rejected, the First Respondent filed a writ petition No. 3360/74 which was 
allowed and a mandamus issued to the Second Respondent to dispose of the 
applicalioo in accordance with law holding that tho said Scheme did not ope-
,.,...._ 
··~ 
... 
) 
1
--
' 
K.S.R.T. CORPN. v. B.A. 1AYARAM 
rate as a bar to increasing the number of trips on an existing inter-state route. 
The Second Respondent accordingly invited representation in connection there-
with. In the meantime, the ~AppelJant the Karnataka State Road Transport 
Corporation, filed on November 27, 1974 a writ petition _No. 6399/74 to 
recall the order made in the said writ petition No. 3360/74 and to rehear it 
after impleading.the Appellant as a respondent thereto. The writ petition was 
dismissed holding that the appellant was not a necessary party to writ petition 
No. 3360/74. On December 23/24, 1974, the Second Respondent granted to lhe 
first respondent the additional trip applied for by him. Against the order of 
dismissal of the W.P. 6399/74, the Appellant filed, an appeal No. WA 949/1979 
under seclion 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (Mysore Ac.t V of 1962). 
On a reference by the Division Bench, the Full Bench by its Judgment delivered 
on September 19, 1979, opined that ''If the condition of a permit for operating 
a stage carriage over a rOute is allcred by increa~ing the maximum number of 
trips over that route sPecified earlier in the permit such variation of the condi-
tion of the permit does not amourit to grant of a ner permit." 
The Third Respondent who had been granted three stage carriage permits 
on three different inter-state routes, namely, Bangalore to Cliddapah; Bangalore 
Kalabasti;and Bangalore to VeJJore applied on June 11, 1979 to the Second 
Respondent for varyjng the conditions of the said three permits by increasing 
the 

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