KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus ASHRUFULLA KHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 194 · Decided: 14-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
v. 
ASHRUFULLA KHAN AND ORS. 
JANUARY 14, 2002 
B 
[V.N. KHARE AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.) 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: 
Chapter IVA-Sections 68C, 68D-State carriage route permit-Grant 
C of-Scheme totally excluding private operators from plying on notified route-
Existing operators whose permits overlap the notified portions to be rendered 
ineffective for the overlapping portions-When private operators traverse on 
the lines of notified route to continue journey on a non-notified route-Such 
traversing on a notified route cannot be regarded as intersection-Also such 
D overlapping cannot be sustained as it relates to small portion or portions 
falling within the limits of a town or a village on a nationalised route. 
'Intersection' and 'overlapping'-Distinction between-Explained 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Powers of High Court to 
E enforce Rule of law-Not to pass order or direction contrary to what has 
been injuncted by law. 
F 
Words & Phrases : 
Intersection-Meaning of in the context of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 
Mysore State Transport Undertaking framed a scheme for exclusive 
plying of its vehicles by the Undertaking on the routes falling within the 
scheme. Scheme provided that the State Transport Undertaking shall operate 
services on all the routes to the complete exclusion of private operators except 
that the existing permit holders on the interstate route may continue to operate 
G on such inter-State route, subject to condition that their permits shall be 
rendered ineffective for the overlapping portions of the notified routes. 
Transport Authority invited applications for grant of state carriage permit 
on a particular route. Respondent No. 1 submitted an application for the same. 
However, appellant-Corporation filed objection against the proposed grant of 
H permits as the said route overlapped portions of the notified route falling within 
194 
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TPT. CORPN. v. ASHRUFULLA KHAN 
195 
the Scheme. The objection was overruled. Appellant-Corporation was A 
successful before the Tribunal and Single Judge of the High Court, but was 
.,, 
unsuccessful before the Tribunal when the matter was remanded to it by the 
Division Bench after the Full Bench gave its opinion. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The object and scheme behind Chapter IVA of the Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1939 make it clear that once a scheme for total exclusion of 
private operators for a route formulated by a State Transport Undertaking is 
approved by the government and is published in the official gazette, no permit 
can be granted to private operators other than the State Transport Undertaking 
on a notified route or portion thereof except in terms of the scheme. 
(200-C-D) 
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) 
Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 632 and Adarsh Travels Bus Service and Anr. v. State of 
UP. & Ors., [1985) 4 SCC 557, followed. 
C.P.C. Motor Service v. State of Mysore, [1962) Suppl. 1 SCR 717 and 
Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore State Transport Appellate 
Tribunal, (1975) 1 SCR 615, relied on. 
B 
c 
D 
Webster's Dictionary, Vol-I; Black's Dictionary of Law, Fifth Edn.; 
Chambers English Dictionary; The Law Lexicon Reprint Edn., (1987) and The E 
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. I, referred to. 
1.2. There is a clear and obvious distinction between an 'overlapping' 
and an 'intersection' for purposes of Chapter IV A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 
1988. In the case of an overlapping a stage carriage is to ply on the same line 
of travel on a portion of a notified route and it is immaterial whether it is a F 
small distance of four or five kilometres falling within the limits of a village 
or town. Whereas in the case of an intersection a non-notified route only cuts 
across a notified route. The exceptions sought to be made by Full Bench in 
the form of municipal limit or village limit is totally erroneous and that the 
same defeats the very object behind the scheme which is for total exclusion of G 
private operation. The consistent view of this Court has throughout been that 
the scheme is a law and the same has to be preserved and protected in public 
interest. Any other view taken contrary to the said view would amount to 
violating the integrity ofan approved scheme under Section 68D of the Act. 
Any slight deviation in the scheme may frustrate the entire Scheme. 
Therefore, High Court under Article 226 

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