T.V. NATARAJ AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 957 · Decided: 14-12-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
·-
T.V. NATARAJ AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC. 
DECEMBER 14,1993 
(A.M. AHMADI AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-S.68-C-:-Notification of route-Excluding 
completely or partially private operators from plying on notified 
route-Whether excludes operators of inter-State route also-Suggestion for 
framing proper legislation-Or taking appropriate steps so as to avoid incon·. C 
venience to public--Reiterated. 
The appellants were permlt·holders of stage carriages operating on 
inter-State route having starting point at one or the other place in Kar· 
nataka and termini in Tamil Nadu. Some of them were operating on the 
intra-State route before the route was notifted by Anekal Pocket Scheme D 
of 1959 under s. 68·C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. But their plying was 
not affected as the Scheme was treated as of partial exclusion or not 
applicable to inter-State route. Latter, their permits were cancelled by the 
Transport Authority on the ground that the same overlapped the route 
notifted by publication of the Scheme. Aggrieved, the appellants ap· E 
proached the High Court, but could not succeed. Hence the appeaJ11 by 
special leave. 
It was contended by the appellants that since operators of inter-State 
route were not excluded from the notified Scheme, their permits could not 
have been cancelled. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
F 
HELD : 1.1. Once a scheme is published in relation to any area or 
route or portion thereof, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial or 
other persons or otherwise, no person other than the State Transport G 
Undertaking may operate on the notlfted area or notlfted route except as 
provided in the Scheme itself. Consequently, no private operator could 
operate his vehicle on any part or portion of a notifted area or notified 
route unless unauthorised so to do by the terms of the Scheme itself. 
r962·B·DJ H 
957 
' 
958 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 s.c.R.. 
A 
Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr. v, State of U.P. & Ors., [1985) 4 
sec 557' followed. 
1.2. In the absence of express authorisation in the Scheme, the 
controversy as to whether Notification of a route under s.68-C of the Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1939 excluding completely or partially private operators from 
B plying on the notified route results in excluding the operators of inter-State 
route as well, is no more res-integra. (963-C] 
c 
Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1985) 4 
sec 557, followed. 
H.C. Narayanappa & Ors. v. The State of Mysore & Ors., (1960) 3 
SCR 742; Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. The Mysore Revenue 
Appellate Tribunal & Ors., [1975) 1 SCR 493; Mysore State Road Transport 
Corporation v. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR (1974) SC 
1940 and Abdul Khader Saheb v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribuna~ Ban· 
D galore, [1973) 2 SCR 925=AIR 1973 SC 534, referred to. 
1.3. Though the scheme does not mention private operators of inter· 
State route it is not the implied but express authorisation in the Scheme 
which could permit a priva~e inter-State Operator to ply on a notified 
E intra-State route. [962-G] 
Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1985) 4 
~cc 557, followed. 
Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore State Transport 
F Appellate Tribunal, AIR (1974) SC 1940, relied on. 
2. It is reiterated that it is for the State to take steps so as to avoid 
any inconvenience to public either by framing a proper legislation or by 
taking steps as suggested by this Court earlier. [963-D] 
G 
Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1985) 4 
sec 5~7, followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7435-
7447 of 1993. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.93 of the Kamataka High 
.. . 
NATARAJv. STATE[SAHAl,J.] 
959 
Court in W.A. Nos. 1642, 2018, 1612 & 1641/89 and W.P. Nos. 18992, A 
18993, 14902 to 14908 of 1993. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 7450 of 1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.93 of the Karnataka High 
Court in W.P. No. 18948 of 1993. 
WITH 
B 
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 18152-53 of 1993 (Computer Code C 
No. 22313 of 1993). 
AK. Sen, M.R.V. Achar, C.S. Shanthamallappa, G. Prabhakar and 
N.D.B. Raju for the Appellants. 
R. Santhana Krishnan, Ms. Sutheela, Ms. Rajani and K.R. Nagaraja D 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.M. SARAI, J. Whether notification of a route under Section 68-C 
of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.