MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 615 · Decided: 08-08-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

GHi 
A 
MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
v . 
../ 
MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 
August 8, 1974 
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, M. H. BEG AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.] 
B 
Motor Yehiclea Act, 1939, Chapter IY A-Scheme private operators from the 
notified area or route-Licence to any operator whose route traversed or overlop~li 
tm)' part or whole of notified route, if can be granted. 
' 
Motor Yehiclea Act, 1939, Section 2 (28-A)-Definition of "route"-"Route 
and highway, if can be equated-Private operator, whether can be completely exc/udei 
on a route which overlaps even a portion of notified route. 
The Mysore State Road Transport Corporation opera~ on the notified routt 
c 
under Ch. IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, between Hiriyur and V.V. Sagar. 
It objected to the renewal of a permit to the third respondent for the route Hiriyur 
~. 
to Chitradurga and back via V. V. Sagar, Hosadurga and Janakal on the grou.ad 
that this renewal will authorise an overlapping over three miles on the notified route. 
Both the Regional Transport Authority, Chitradurga and the State TranspOit 
Authority, Bangalore, negatived the objection. The writ petition filed by the 
appellant was dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka in limine. The applica~ 
for the grant of a certificate of fitness under Art. 133(l){c) was also rejected. 
D 
appeal has been filed after obtaining special leave agamst that dismissal ordtt'. 
It was contended for the appellant that the Bangalore scheme under Ch. IV-A 
of the Act prohibits overlapping of the route or routes of private operators on a 
part or whole of the notified route and therefore, permit to operate bus service ovt!i/ 
the notified route cannot be granted to the third respondent. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD :-By majority (P. Jaganmohan Reddy and A. Alagiriswami, JJ.) c• 
E 
IV of the Act in specific terms provides a complete and, and in the circumstance 
1 
a satisfactory machinery for reasonably regulating the exclusion of all or some of tke 
private operators from the notified area or route. [618G] 
Y. S. Kondala Rao arrd Ors. v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport CorporattiD 
and Ors., A.I.R. 1961 SC 82 relied on. Sasaghir Ahmed v. State of U.P. [195~ 
1 S.C.R. 707 held not applicable to the scheme notified under Ch IV-A of the A . 
Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that if there is a prohibitia. 
to operate on a notified route or routes no licences can be granted to any operator 
F 
whose route traversed or overlapped any part or whole of that notified route. Btli 
in My11ore State Road Transport Corporation v. The Mysore Appellate Tribunal On. 
(C. As. Nos. 1755-1756 of 1968 etc. decided on 17-5-1974, this Court has taken " 
contrary view. [622H] 
S. Abdul Khader Saheb v. The Mysore Revenue Appellate TribuMl, BanKalo~ 
tmd Ors. [1973] 2 S.C.R. 925 Nilkanth Prasad and Or11. v. State of Bihar, (1962] SuN'-
(1) S.C.R. 728, Abdul Gaffoor v. State of Mysore, [1955) 1 S.C.R. 701,Kelani Va/11. 
Motor Transit Co. Ltd. v. Colombo-Retnapura Omnibus Co. Ltd. [1946) A.C. 338,C .• 
G 
C.-Motor Service, Myaore v. The State_ of Mysore and Another [1962] Supp. (1) S.C.R. 
717, Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. The Mysore Revenue Appe/lat• 
1 
Tribunal, [1965] 1 S.C.R. 841 and Mohan/al Chunnilal Kothari v. TribhoJJan Haribh6l 
Tamboli, [1963] 2 S.C.R. 707 referred to, 
(ii) In any case under s. 2 (28A) inserted by s. 2 of Act 56 of 1969 the word "route•• 
ha.s been defined as meaning " a line of travel which specifies the highway which rna 
, . 
.. 
be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another". This d~ 
tion correla~ the notional line of travel between two termini with the ortioa 
H 
of the highway ~hich has to be traversed on that ro1;1te .. It i.!, therefoco, a~areo1 
that where a pnvate transport owner makes an application to operate on a route 
which overlaps even a portion of the notified route, i.e. where the part of tho highway 
to be used by the private transport owner traverses on a line on the same hi hwa 
on the notified route, then that application has to be considered only in the li~b.t J 
616 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] 1 S.C.R. 
the scheme as notified. If any conditions are placed then those conditions have 
to be fulfilled and if there is a total prohibition then the application must be rejected. 
· 
{622B-C] 
Kclani Valley Motor Transit Co. Ltd. v. Colombo-Ratnapura Omnibus Co. Ltd. 
[1946] A. C. 338, }~ J. Kodala Rao and Ors.

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