LexS. ABDUL KHADER SAHEB versus THE MYSORE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E G 92S S. ABDUL KHADER SAHEB v. THE MYSORE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE & ORS. November 9, 1972 [A. N. GROVER, K. K. MATHEW AND A. N. MUKHERJEA, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939). s.68-D-Intra-State route, what is; Nationalisation of irttra state route-If proviso to s. 68·D(3) applicable- Scheme of nationalisation, ;j prevails over inter-state agreement-Scheme· exciuding all operators except two categories--Appellant not within· exceptions-If entitled to pern1it on inter-state route, when permit made· ineffective on over-lapping portion. Practice and Procedure-Revocation of special leave. In .August 1964, the States of Mysore arid Andra Pradesh entered into a reciprocal agreement to introduce stage carriage services on the inter.State route from Bellary, in Mysore, to Manthralaya in Andhra Pradesh, via Chintakunta, the border in Mysore State. By the Befiary scheme which was approved by the Mysore Government under s. 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and which came into force in May, 1964, it was provided that only the State Transport Undertakings will operate services on the route Bellary to Chintakunta to the complete· exclusion of other persons, except in regard to the portions of the inter· district routes lying outside the limits of Bellary district. The existing permit-holders of inter-state routes were allowed to operate such inter- State routes subject to the oondition that· their permit shall be rendered ineffective by the competent authority on the overlapping portion in the Bellary district. I_n the present case, the Regional Transport Authority called for- apphcallons for the grant of a permit on the inter-State route in 1965 and the ap~llant w_as one of the applicants. The Mysore Revenue Appellant Tnbunal, · m appeal, granted the permit to the appellant with the condition that no passenger was to be picked up or set down on the portion of t~ r~ad overlapping the notified route, of the scheme (that IS Bellary to Chmtakunta). The High Cuurt in a writ petition did not agree with the view of the Tribunal that even under a scheme of total e~clusion from Bellary to Chintakunta border, a permit could be l~<ued m respect of the overlapping portion of the inter.State route by malc;:ng that permit ineffective on that portion, and remanded the matter to the State Transport Authority for reconsideration in accordance with law, Disn~iSM the appeal to this Court, H HELD : ( 1 j 'f!2ere is no scheme of nationalisation relating lo the· inter-State route r._"m !'ellary to Manthralaya and t~ Bellary scheme is confined only to the •nter.Sta.te .. routes, ~n~ of which i!I the Bellary- Chintakunta route, whose .termmu were within !he State. It could ~ 926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1973] 2 S.C.R. nationalised by the State of Mysore und,er the provisions of s.68-D even though t!iat portion overlaps the inter-State route from Bcllary to Ma.ithra- laya. [~30 E-F; 931 CJ B. H. Aswathanarayan Singh & Ors. v. State of.Mysore & Ors., [1966) ! ·S.C.R .. 87, refmed to. (2) Since the scheme did not deal with an inter-State route at .a'I no question of the applicability of the proviso to s.68-D( 3), which requires the pre11.ious approval of the Central Government arises. [930 DJ (3) A scheme of nationalisation approved under s. 68-D would prevail over an inter-State agreement in respect of an inter-State route. [929 G-H; 930 A-Bf T. N. Raahunatha Reddy v. Mysore State Transport A111hority, [1970] 3 ·S. C. R. 780, followed. (4) In Thippeswamy's ca.ie (A.LR. 1972 S.C. 1674) it_ was held that according to the scheme all operators excepting those mentioned in the scheme a,.. excluded from the nationalised routes. The only two ex- ceptions were with regard to inter-district operators and the existing per- mit-holders on inter-State routes. Since the appellant did not fall within either of these two categories it was not possible to accede to the appel- lant's contention that bec~usc the scheme merely provides for partial exclusion it was open to the authorities concerned to issue a permit for the route overlapping the inter-state route. [929 E-GJ Thipp'fwamy v. The Mysore Appellate Tribunal, A.I.R. 19'72 !;.C. 1674, followed. (5) In the application for stay filed along with the application for special leave it was stated that ~pecial leave had been granted in Thippeswamy-., case, but, by the -lime the petitioo for spe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.