K C MARAN Vs. M JAYARAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these revisions raise an important question of law as to the meaning of S. 68F (I-D) together with its proviso of the Motor Vehicles Act The respondent who is common in both these revisions namely Jayaramiah, the second respondent is C.R.P. 35M of 1961 and the first respondent m C-R.P. 3743 of 198L applied for the grant of the counter-signature, of his permit on the inter-State route Bangalore to Dharmapuri viz. Bennargetta, Jigani, Anekal, Poonampalli, Border, Mathigore, Kelamangalam, Royakottah and Palacode in respect of the stage carriage MYA 400. A portion of this route lies, within the territory of Tamil Nadu State. This route is not covered by any reciprocal agreement and the primary permit was unilaterally granted to the Karnataka authority. The State Transport Authority held that as much as 93 kms of the route which is well over two-thirds of the total distance lies in the State of Tamil Nadu and further in view of the fact that there are a large number of direct bus services between Dharmapuri and Bangalore refused the counter-signature. On appeal by the respondent, Jayaramiah two points were raised: (1) whether counter-signature could be made as portions of the route overlap certain scheme for nationalisation between Bangalore and certain points in Tamil Nadu published by the State Transport Undertakings in Tamil Nadu and (2) whether on facts there was any justification or necessity for the grant of the counter-signature? The Tribunal was, of the view that the scheme related to point to point namely Salem to Bangatore (terminus to terminus) and therefore the route in question Bangalore to Dharmapuri could not be affected unless specified in the scheme; there is no specification. On the necessity, it held the occupancy ratio ranged between 68 per cent and 86 per cent. There, was also number of public representations. On these two grounds, it directed the counter-signature. To revise this order, Anna Transport Corporation, one of the objectors has preferred C.R.P. 3536 of 1981, while another objector K.C. Maran has preferred C.R.P. 3743 of 1983. These two revisions since they relate to one and the same subject matter are dealt with under a common order.

(2.) The learned Advocate General, appearing for the Anna Transport Corporation, confines his,, entire arguments to only the question of law as to the scope and the applicability of the scheme for nationalisation. It is the contention that in so far as the scheme for nationalisation covers the route Salem to Bangalore, the route in question namely Dharmapuri to Bangalore being a part of the route would be covered by the scheme. Therefore, in view of the directions of the Supreme Court in S.L.P. 941 of 1978, the Transport Authorities would have no jurisdiction to grant the counter-signature but merely will have to keep the, application pending. This would be the position even though - the route in question Ls not specifically mentioned. In support of this submission, reliance is placed in Damodar Das v. R. T. A., Rewa. Under identical circumstances a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High court took the view that because Section 68-F (ID) uses the language, area or route or portion thereof covered by such scheme' any portion lying between point to point, namely, -Salem to Bangalore in the instant case, would be covered. That being so, there will be hardly any scope for the grant of counter-signature. The learned counsel for the petitioner in C.R.P. 3743 of 1981 adopts the arguments of the learned Advocate General.

(3.) In opposition to this ' the learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is a great distinction between the language used in S. 68F '(1D) and its proviso, while the main section says 'covered by such scheme'. the proviso would say 'specified in the scheme'. Be, sides in clause 4 of the scheme there is no scope for complete or partial exclusion. If the interpretation placed is considered, the order of the Tribunal is cor rect. notwithstanding the ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.