- (1.) JUDGMENT
(2.) LEAVE granted. These appeals raise a question : whether Rule 282 (2) (ii) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964, would be read into the notified route and given an interpretation extending 8 Kms. from the municipal limits of the town service or whether the conditions of the scheme and exceptions engrafted therein are strictly to be construed? The facts are not fairly in dispute. In the first case, the appellant had obtained a temporary permit under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. 4 of 1939), (for short, the 'repealed Act') which stands repealed by Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. But we are concerned on the facts of this case with the interpretation of the scheme and the Rules under the repealed Act. Admittedly, the appellant has been running the vehicle on the town service, Tirupati, a Pilgrim Centre of Lord Venkateswara Swamy known in north India as Balaji, in Andhra Pradesh obtaining renewals on temporary basis from time to time. We are informed that in other cases they are pakka stage carriage permit holders obtaining permits under Section 58 of the repealed Act. Chandragiri to Renigunta via Tirupati is the notified approved route under Chapter IVA of the repealed Act. The appellants had relied upon a memorandum issued by the Government dated 9/11/1981, in which it was stated that the town service stood extendable to a distance of 8 Kms. from municipal limits. When the appellants were prohibited to run their town service up to the extent of 8 Kms. on the basis of such memorandum, they filed writ petitions in the High Court. In Writ Petition No. 1995 of 1983, the learned single Judge of the High Court held that by operation of the prohibitions contained in the scheme in Notes 2 and 3 thereof, the town service could not be extended up to a distance of 8 Kms. from the municipal limits the same being contrary to the scheme. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition. Similar cases met with the same fate. In W. A. Nos. 434 and 431/84, and batch, the Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 30-10-85, and in other cases on different dates, confirmed the same. Mr. A. Subba Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants who led the batch, contended that Rule 282 (2) (ii) expressly mentions that town service shall be construed to be extendable to the outer limits of the municipality and so town service would encompass 8 Kms. from the municipal limits. Though it is notified route, the appellants are entitled to run their vehicles on the notified route up to a distance of 8 Kms. the same being a part of the town service. The interpretation given by the High Court, therefore, is incorrect in law. Shri G. Ramaswamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the Corporation contended that there is a distinction between muffassil service and town service. The town service is intended to operate only within the town area. Rule 282(2) (ii) requires to be interpreted only when there is inter-section between the notified area and the town service; the scheme is a complete code in itself. The exceptions and rights given in the scheme which is a law, requires to be interpreted strictly. The appellant in the first case having obtained a temporary permit under Section 62 of the repealed Act, it outlived its life the moment the period of four months expires. He is not an existing operator on the route and, therefore, he cannot come within the exceptions engrafted in the scheme. It is also contended that if any permit is granted in the town service, in view of the language used in the scheme and the exceptions engrafted, it shall not overlap more than 8 Kms. on the notified route. If it so overlaps, there is a total prohibition for running the vehicle in the notified route in town. The interpretation put up by the High Court is, therefore, correct in law.
(3.) THE question, therefore, as posed earlier, is : whether Rule 282 (2) (ii) would be read into the notified scheme and given an interpretation extending the town service up to the distance of 8 Kms. from the limits of town. Rule 282(1) reads thus : "Rule 282. Fixation of stages for stage carriages : (1) In the case of stage carriages, the Regional Transport Authority, shall, after consultation with such other authority as it may deem desirable, fix stages on all bus routes except where town services are plying. THE maximum distance of such stage shall not ordinarily exceed 6.4 Kms. When stages are so fixed, fares shall be collected according to stages." Sub-rule (2) of Rule 282 provides that the Regional Transport Authority shall, subject to the following restrictions, determine which are town service routes. Rule 282 (2) (ii) reads as under :- "No route of town service shall extend more than 8 Kilometers beyond the limits of the municipality or town from which it starts provided that this restriction shall not apply to any town service routes, which were in existence on the date of coming of these rules into force or in respect of those routes for which specific permission of the Transport Commissioner is obtained." ;