KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus BABY P. P. & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 747 · Decided: 16-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
747
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
v.
BABY P. P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5257 of 2018)
MAY 16, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Chapter VI – ss.99, 100, 103 and
s.104 and its Proviso – Road Transport Service – Grant of temporary
permit to private stage carriage operators on notified routes – When
not permissible – Scheme notified by State for providing properly
coordinated passenger road transport services – Clause 4 of the
Scheme inter alia provided that the services to be operated by the
State Transport Undertaking (STU) along the notified route were to
the exclusion of private stage carriages operating in the said route
– Respondent no.1, private stage carriage operator sought
temporary permit under proviso to s.104 to run services for the
route Pallissery-Angamaly-Perumbavoor – Rejected by Regional
Transport Authority (RTA) – Held: Scheme formulated by the State
Government is a law by itself and holds the fort in all matters involving
permits – Since it partially excludes private stage carriage operators
on the notified route, the same is to be adhered to – No private
stage carriage operator can operate beyond the stipulations of the
scheme – Route from Angamaly to Perumbavoor is a notified route
– Thus, STU has exclusive right to ply its stage carriages – Proviso
to s.104 gives only a limited breath of life to the private sector, viz.,
only if the vehicles of STU do not operate on the notified route as
per the scheme, temporary permits may be granted to the private
stage carriage operators – Undisputedly, more than 450 buses of
STU ply everyday on the notified route – Further, the Scheme does
not permit private stage carriage operators to overlap more than 5
kms or 5 % (whichever is less) of the route proposed by it – However,
respondent no.1 sought temporary permit for the route which
overlaps by 13 kms on the notified route – Such overlap is clearly
prohibited under the Scheme – Respondent no.1 does not fall within
the proviso to s.104– RTA was justified in rejecting the claim of
   [2018] 5 S.C.R. 747
   747
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
748
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
respondent no.1 – Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 – s.3–
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – ss.68-C and 68-D.
Words & Phrases – ‘Intersection’ & ‘Overlapping’ –
Distinction between – Discussed – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Interpretation of Statutes – Proviso vis-a-vis main Section –
Interpretation of – Discussed – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.104
and proviso.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The law governing the formulation of schemes
is found in Sections 99 and 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Chapter VI of the Act deals with special provisions relating to
State Transport Undertaking (STUs). Preparation and publication
of proposals regarding road transport services of the STU has
been dealt with under Section 99. If the State Government is of
the opinion that for the purpose of providing efficient, adequate,
economical, and properly guaranteed road transport services in
relation to any area or route or operation thereto, these road
transport services should be run and operated by the STU to the
exclusion (complete or partial) of private stage carriage operators,
a proposal in the Official Gazette shall be published as provided
under Section 99. After considering the objections, if any, and
after giving an opportunity to the objectors or their
representatives and the representatives of the STU, the State
Government may approve or modify such proposals. The
approved or modified scheme will be published in the Official
Gazette of the State Government, apart from newspapers, under
Section 100(3). After publication, the scheme shall be final and
the same is called “the approved scheme”. The area or the route,
to which the scheme relates, shall be called “Notified Area” or
“Notified Route”. Section 103 deals with the issue of permits by
the STU pursuant to the scheme, if approved. Section 104 relates
to the restrictions on grant of permits in respect of the notified
area or notified route.  [Paras 11, 12] [758-G; 759-F-H; 760-A-C]
1.2  Section 104 makes it amply clear that where a scheme
has been published under Section 100(3) of the Act in respect of
any notified area or notified route, grant of any permit on the
notified route or area is impermissible, except in accordance with
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
749
the provisions of the scheme. However, the proviso clarif

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