KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. ASHRAFULLA KHAN
LAWS(SC)-2002-1-158
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
January 14,2002
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Appellant
VERSUS
ASHRAFULLA KHAN
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
H C NARAYANAPPA D R KARIGOWDA VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED]C P C MOTOR SERVICE MYSORE VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED]
NILKANTH PRASAD RAI JAI KRISHNA DEBI SINGH TANSUKH RAI JAIN RAM SANEHI SINGH NAWALKISHORE LAL ROAD TRANSPORT CO DHANBAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
NEHRU MOTOR TRANSPORT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED AND OFTEN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED]
RAM SANEHI SINGH VS. BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT GORPN [REFERRED]
S ABDUL KHADER SAHEB VS. MYSORE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE [REFERRED]
MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. MYSORE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [REFERRED]
MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [REFERRED]
ADARSH TRAVELS BUS SERVICE VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE VS. VENKATESWARA HATCHERIES PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
J R R RAHEEM KHAN S/O J R RASHEED KHAN VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DAVANAGERE, REP BY ITS SECRETARY [LAWS(KAR)-2019-4-159] [REFERRED TO]SATYENDRA DWIVEDI VS. ADMINISTRATOR NAGAR MAHAPALIKA [LAWS(ALL)-2003-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA TYAGI DR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VS. STATE OF U P THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT AND V N AGARWAL, SPECIAL SECRETARY (TRANSPORT)/HEARING AUTHORITY [LAWS(ALL)-2007-6-85] [REFERRED]
MOHIT SHARMA VS. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES [LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-424] [REFERRED TO]
JAMEELA BEGUM VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-12-42] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-7-57] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. HASAN KHAN AND ETC. VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(CHH)-2005-2-26] [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN MEKAP AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2015-3-17] [REFERRED TO]
ORISSA RURAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(ORI)-2012-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. JAGANNATH CHOUDHURY SPECIAL CLASS CONTRACTOR [LAWS(ORI)-2011-11-44] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAJI HEGOLJI THAKORE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2005-2-50] [REFERRED TO]
YOUSUF CHALIL VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2019-7-204] [REFERRED TO]
BEAUTY SYIEMLIEH AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
A VENKATESH VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOLAR [LAWS(KAR)-2009-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
K S R T C BANGALORE VS. R MAHESHWARI FB [LAWS(KAR)-2003-7-70] [REFERRED TO]
NAMITA SINGH VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2016-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
RASID JAVED VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(SC)-2010-7-45] [REFERRED TO]
FATEH KISHAN KAPIL VS. JAI NARAIN VYAS UNIVERSITY [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
DARSHAN SINGH VS. KEWAL KRISHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR SAHU VS. DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ORI)-2009-3-91] [REFERRED TO]
M SANAULLA VS. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KAR)-2017-4-116] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD VS. RAM KUMAR GIJROYA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-1-77] [REFERRED TO]
DWARIKA PRASAD PANDEY MANAGER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL KNOWN AS SHRI CHANDRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-5-243] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. MOHD SHAKIR ALI [LAWS(ALL)-2005-9-77] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SUNDARI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-4-66] [REFERRED TO]
PRIVATE BAS SANCHALAK KALYAN SAMITI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-131] [REFERRED TO]
KUMUD SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2005-2-32] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH GOEL VS. ROHINI GOEL [LAWS(SC)-2010-2-17] [REFERRED TO]
NANDRAM PAL VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2014-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
M.P. STATE COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION MARYADIT VS. M/S KILPEST INDIA LTD [LAWS(MPH)-2013-8-28] [REFERRED TO]
FATEH KISHAN KAPIL VS. JAI NARAIN VYAS UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR& ORS [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-1-162] [REFERRED]
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. OMADITYA VERMA [LAWS(SC)-2005-4-118] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KER)-2013-4-29] [REFERRED TO]
RAM ASHRE HARIJAN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2014-5-19] [REFERRED TO]
KANCO ENTERPRISES LIMITED VS. AUTHORISED OFFICER OF STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2015-5-67] [REFERRED TO]
SONAM RAWAL VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-320] [REFERRED TO]
MADHAV SHRAMA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-2-42] [REFERRED TO]
I.LANUCHUBA CHANG VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2021-4-52] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C. VS. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KER)-2013-8-136] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA NATH GHOSH VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2010-10-39] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2013-4-78] [REFERRED TO]
SAURABH JAIN VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-289] [REFERRED TO]
SAURABH GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-122] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-7-277] [REFERRED TO]
SHRAMIK SAMAJ KALYAN SANGH PARIWAHAN NIGAM ALIGARH REGION VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-11-94] [REFERRED TO]
D.C.M SHRIRAM INDUSTRIES LTD. UNIT DAURALA SUGAR WORKS, DAURALA, DISTRICT MEERUT AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2007-3-380] [REFERRED TO]
K. JAGADEESH REDDY VS. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KAR)-2014-10-226] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. MATA VAISHNO DEVI SHRINE BOARD [LAWS(J&K)-2009-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR VS. DISTRICT GEOLOGIST [LAWS(KER)-2019-4-102] [REFERRED TO]
ABDU RAHIMAN VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM [LAWS(KER)-2019-7-207] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2011-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
G K VENKATASHIVA REDDY VS. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANS CORPN [LAWS(KAR)-2004-8-59] [REFERRED TO]
PURVA KISHOR BALKE VS. STATE OF M. P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-2-244] [REFERRED TO]
Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. VS. R. Maheshwari and others [LAWS(KAR)-2003-7-108] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. BABY P. P. [LAWS(SC)-2018-5-52] [REFERRED TO]
JIJO VS. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM [LAWS(KER)-2017-8-48] [REFERRED TO]
BEENA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2019-8-196] [REFERRED TO]
UMMER KHAYUM KHAN VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLAR [LAWS(KAR)-2017-6-78] [REFERRED TO]
SURAKSHA RANI CHOPRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-5-113] [REFERRED TO]
T.K.MANSOOR VS. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(KER)-2016-7-60] [REFERRED TO]
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KER)-2016-7-206] [REFERRED TO]
R RAGHUPATHI GOWDA VS. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KAR)-2005-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
A B BHASKARA RAO VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBI VISAKHAPATNAM [LAWS(SC)-2011-9-125] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. ARVIND KUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2012-7-54] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BANGALORE VS. POOJA TRAVELS BHALKI BIDAR DISTRICT [LAWS(KAR)-2004-11-37] [REFERRED TO]
ANJALI COLLEGE OF PHARMACY AND SCIENCE VS. PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-89] [REFERRED TO]
AMARDEEP SINGH VS. HARVEEN KAUR [LAWS(SC)-2017-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
SRI B. ATHAULLA KHAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2017-5-19] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYANT TRAVELS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2012-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
MUHAMMAD RAFEEQUE VS. IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(KER)-2019-7-197] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KER)-2013-4-71] [REFERRED TO]
AJITHA KUMARY VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KER)-2021-7-152] [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. SHIV KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-2008-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-5-64] [REFERRED TO]
SHESHDHAR AWASTHI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-10-87] [REFERRED TO]
KARMENDER KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CA)-2012-11-5] [REFERRED TO]
VIMLESH KUMARI AND 16 ORS ; SARALA DEVI KUSHWAHA AND ANR ; BRIJESH KUMAR MAURYA; SUSHAMA DEVI; ALOK KUMAR PAL AND 46 ORS ; KM NEELAM KUMARI VISHWAKARMA AND ANR ; KAPIL DEV; SUNITA DEVI; ANKITA RAI VS. STATE OF U P & 4 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-102] [REFERRED TO]
JANTA VIDYALAYA SHIKSHA SAMITI VS. JIWAJI UNIVERSITY, GWALIOR [LAWS(MPH)-2013-8-171] [REFERRED TO]
JAGMAL RAM VS. ASST ENGINEER I G N P [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY VS. SURJEET KAUR [LAWS(SC)-2010-7-108] [REFERRED TO]
B.A.LINGA REDDY VS. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(SC)-2014-12-68] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD SAJID ANSARI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
M K JAIN VS. STATE TRANSPORT [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-147] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARESH RAIKWAR VS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2004-1-22] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR SAXENA VS. CIRCLE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PERSONAL DEPARTMENT STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2003-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SWAROOP AHIRWAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-8-110] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHAMAYEE DASH VS. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2013-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
MARBAT DOHKROT VS. H.S.THANGKHIEW, W.DIENGDOH [LAWS(MEGH)-2020-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)In this group of appeals, the question that falls for our consideration is "whether small portion or portions falling within the limits of towns or villages on a notified route under Chapter IVA of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, since repealed (hereinafter referred to as 'the Repealed Act'), are to be treated as a route overlapping or intersection"
(2.)Learned Counsel for the parties have addressed arguments only in Civil Appeal No. 1341/90 which substantially arises out of the judgment of the Full Bench of Karnataka High Court rendered in Writ Appeal No. 403/1988. Learned Counsel for the parties jointly prayed to examine the correctness of the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench and the decision in Civil Appeal No. 1341/1990 would govern the fate of other cases. We accordingly notice the facts which have given rise to Civil Appeal No. 1341/1990.
(3.)As far back in the year 1966, the then Mysore State Transport Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as the Undertaking) framed a scheme under Section 68-C of the Repealed Act known as Kolar Pocket Scheme (in short 'the Scheme'), for exclusive plying of the vehicle by the Undertaking on the routes falling within the Scheme. The erstwhile Mysore Government, after having considered the Scheme as proposed, and the representations filed against the said Scheme, approved the Scheme under Section 68-D of the Repealed Act and the said approved Scheme was published in Government Gazette dated January 10, 1968. The Scheme provided that the State Transport Undertaking shall operate services on all the routes to the complete exclusion of other private operators except that the existing permit holders on the inter-State route may continue to operate on such inter-State route, subject to conditions that their permits shall be rendered ineffective for the overlapping portions of the notified routes and that the existing operators whose permits overlap the notified portions between Bagepalli to Chelur and Pathpatya Cross only may continue to operate on such routes subject to conditions that their permits would be rendered ineffective for the overlapping portions. However, in the years 1984-85, the Regional Transport Authority, Kolar invited applications under Section 57(2) of the Repealed Act for grant of stage carriage permit on route known as Kanumanahally to Bagarpet. Respondent No. 1 herein, in response to the said invitation submitted an application for grant of stage carriage permit on the said route. The appellant herein - the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, filed an objection against the proposed grant of permits on the premise that the said route overlaps portions of the notified route falling within the Kolar Pocket Scheme, from Kolar Gold Field to Five Light Cross to an extent of 5 kilometer and Desihalli to Bagarpet to an extent of 1.5 kilometer. It was urged before the Regional Transport Authority that the Scheme being of complete exclusion of private operators, no permit could be granted on the said portion of the notified route. However, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that overlapping two portions of the notified route should be construed as intersection and not overlapping and, therefore, the permit can be granted. The Regional Transport Authroity, by its resolution dated 4-3-85 overruled the objections of the appellant herein and granted stage carriage permit in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved against the order of the Regional Transport Authority, the appellant filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The Appellate Tribunal, after having found that the Scheme being for total exclusion of the private operators, no permit can be granted on the notified route or portion thereof, and in that view of the matter the appeal preferred by the appellant was allowed and the grant of permit in favour of the respondent was set aside. The respondent thereafter preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The respondent thereafter preferred a Writ Appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, after hearing of the matter was of the view that the question involved in the appeal required to be decided by a Full Bench. Consequently, the question "whether small portion or portions falling within the limits of a town or village on a nationalised route, are to be treated as a route overlapping or intersection" was referred to a Full Bench of the High Court for its opinion. The Full Bench, by its opinion dated 21-7-88, answered the question as follows :
A small portion/portions falling within the limits of a town or a village on a nationalised route (notified route) are to be treated as only an intersection of the nationalised route and not as overlapping and therefore, it is permissible to grant permit on the route.
The Full Bench accordingly remitted its opinion to the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, in view of the opinion given by the Full Bench allowed the writ appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and remanded the matter to the Appellate Tribunal for considering the matter afresh in the light of the opinion given by the Full Bench. The Appellate Tribunal, following the Full Bench decision dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. Consequently, the appellant has filed the appeal by way of Special Leave Petition. It is in this way these matters have come up before us.
(2.)Learned Counsel for the parties have addressed arguments only in Civil Appeal No. 1341/90 which substantially arises out of the judgment of the Full Bench of Karnataka High Court rendered in Writ Appeal No. 403/1988. Learned Counsel for the parties jointly prayed to examine the correctness of the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench and the decision in Civil Appeal No. 1341/1990 would govern the fate of other cases. We accordingly notice the facts which have given rise to Civil Appeal No. 1341/1990.
(3.)As far back in the year 1966, the then Mysore State Transport Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as the Undertaking) framed a scheme under Section 68-C of the Repealed Act known as Kolar Pocket Scheme (in short 'the Scheme'), for exclusive plying of the vehicle by the Undertaking on the routes falling within the Scheme. The erstwhile Mysore Government, after having considered the Scheme as proposed, and the representations filed against the said Scheme, approved the Scheme under Section 68-D of the Repealed Act and the said approved Scheme was published in Government Gazette dated January 10, 1968. The Scheme provided that the State Transport Undertaking shall operate services on all the routes to the complete exclusion of other private operators except that the existing permit holders on the inter-State route may continue to operate on such inter-State route, subject to conditions that their permits shall be rendered ineffective for the overlapping portions of the notified routes and that the existing operators whose permits overlap the notified portions between Bagepalli to Chelur and Pathpatya Cross only may continue to operate on such routes subject to conditions that their permits would be rendered ineffective for the overlapping portions. However, in the years 1984-85, the Regional Transport Authority, Kolar invited applications under Section 57(2) of the Repealed Act for grant of stage carriage permit on route known as Kanumanahally to Bagarpet. Respondent No. 1 herein, in response to the said invitation submitted an application for grant of stage carriage permit on the said route. The appellant herein - the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, filed an objection against the proposed grant of permits on the premise that the said route overlaps portions of the notified route falling within the Kolar Pocket Scheme, from Kolar Gold Field to Five Light Cross to an extent of 5 kilometer and Desihalli to Bagarpet to an extent of 1.5 kilometer. It was urged before the Regional Transport Authority that the Scheme being of complete exclusion of private operators, no permit could be granted on the said portion of the notified route. However, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that overlapping two portions of the notified route should be construed as intersection and not overlapping and, therefore, the permit can be granted. The Regional Transport Authroity, by its resolution dated 4-3-85 overruled the objections of the appellant herein and granted stage carriage permit in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved against the order of the Regional Transport Authority, the appellant filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The Appellate Tribunal, after having found that the Scheme being for total exclusion of the private operators, no permit can be granted on the notified route or portion thereof, and in that view of the matter the appeal preferred by the appellant was allowed and the grant of permit in favour of the respondent was set aside. The respondent thereafter preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The respondent thereafter preferred a Writ Appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, after hearing of the matter was of the view that the question involved in the appeal required to be decided by a Full Bench. Consequently, the question "whether small portion or portions falling within the limits of a town or village on a nationalised route, are to be treated as a route overlapping or intersection" was referred to a Full Bench of the High Court for its opinion. The Full Bench, by its opinion dated 21-7-88, answered the question as follows :
A small portion/portions falling within the limits of a town or a village on a nationalised route (notified route) are to be treated as only an intersection of the nationalised route and not as overlapping and therefore, it is permissible to grant permit on the route.
The Full Bench accordingly remitted its opinion to the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, in view of the opinion given by the Full Bench allowed the writ appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and remanded the matter to the Appellate Tribunal for considering the matter afresh in the light of the opinion given by the Full Bench. The Appellate Tribunal, following the Full Bench decision dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. Consequently, the appellant has filed the appeal by way of Special Leave Petition. It is in this way these matters have come up before us.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.