{"id":67593,"date":"2002-01-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-01-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002"},"modified":"2015-10-12T22:30:56","modified_gmt":"2015-10-12T17:00:56","slug":"karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002","title":{"rendered":"Karnataka State Road Transport … vs Ashrafulla Khan And Others on 14 January, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Karnataka State Road Transport … vs Ashrafulla Khan And Others on 14 January, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: V N Khare<\/div>\n
Bench: V.N. Khare, Ashok Bhan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 1341  of  1990\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nKARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nASHRAFULLA KHAN AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t14\/01\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nV.N. Khare & Ashok Bhan\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
(with Civil Appeal Nos. 5335\/90, 2730-31\/91, 4654\/2000, 637\/88, 4652-53\/2000, 4519\/90, 438\/92 and C.A. No. 7804\/2001)<\/p>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
V. N. KHARE, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn this group of appeals, the question that falls for our consideration is
\n“whether small portion or portions falling within the limits of towns or
\nvillages on a notified route under Chapter IVA of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939,
\nsince repealed (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Repealed Act’), are to be
\ntreated as a  route overlapping or intersection” ?\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the parties have addressed arguments only in
\nCivil Appeal  No. 1341\/90 which substantially arises out of the judgment of
\nthe Full Bench of Karnataka High Court rendered in Writ Appeal No.
\n403\/1988.  Learned counsel for the parties jointly prayed to examine the
\ncorrectness of the aforesaid judgment of the  Full Bench  and the decision in
\nCivil Appeal No. 1341\/1990  would govern the fate of  other cases.  We
\naccordingly notice  the facts which have given rise to Civil Appeal No.
\n1341\/1990.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs far back in the year 1966, the then Mysore State Transport
\nUndertaking (hereinafter referred to as the Undertaking) framed a scheme
\nunder Section 68-C of the Repealed Act known as Kolar Pocket Scheme  (in
\nshort ‘the Scheme’), for exclusive plying of the vehicle by the\t Undertaking
\non the routes falling within the Scheme.  The  erstwhile Mysore government,
\nafter having considered the Scheme  as proposed, and the representations
\nfiled against the said Scheme, approved the Scheme under Section 68D of
\nthe Repealed Act and the said approved Scheme was published in
\nGovernment Gazette dated January 10, 1968.  The Scheme provided that the
\nState Transport Undertaking shall operate services on all the routes to the
\ncomplete exclusion of other private operators except that the existing permit
\nholders on the inter-State route may continue to operate on such inter-State
\nroute, subject to conditions that their permits shall be rendered ineffective
\nfor the overlapping portions of the notified routes and that the  existing
\noperators whose permits overlap the notified portions between Bagepalli to
\nChelur and Pathpatya Cross only may continue to operate on such routes
\nsubject to conditions that their permits would be rendered ineffective for the
\noverlapping portions.  However, in the years 1984-85, the Regional
\nTransport Authority, Kolar invited applications under Section 57(2) of the
\nRepealed Act for grant of stage carriage permit on route known as
\nKanumanahally to Bagarpet.  Respondent No. 1 herein, in response to the
\nsaid invitation submitted an application for grant of  stage carriage permit on
\nthe said route.\t The appellant herein  the Karnataka State Road Transport
\nCorporation, filed an objection against the proposed grant of permits on the
\npremise that the said route overlaps portions of the notified route falling
\nwithin the Kolar Pocket Scheme, from Kolar Gold Field to Five Light Cross
\nto an extent of 5 kilometer  and Desihalli to Bagarpet to an extent of 1.5
\nkilometer.  It was urged before the Regional Transport Authority that the
\nScheme\tbeing of complete exclusion of\tprivate operators, no permit could
\nbe granted on the said portion of the notified route. However, it was
\ncontended on behalf of the respondent that overlapping two portions of the
\nnotified route should be construed as intersection and not overlapping and,
\ntherefore, the permit can be granted.  The Regional Transport Authority, by
\nits resolution dated 4.3.85 overruled the objections of the appellant herein
\nand granted stage carriage permit in favour of the respondent.\tAggrieved
\nagainst the order of the Regional Transport Authority, the appellant filed an
\nappeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore.  The
\nAppellate Tribunal, after having found that the Scheme being for total
\nexclusion of the private operators, no permit can be granted on the notified
\nroute or portion thereof, and in that view of the matter the appeal preferred
\nby the appellant was allowed and the grant of permit in favour of the
\nrespondent was set aside.  The respondent thereafter preferred a writ petition
\nbefore the High Court of Karnataka challenging the  order of the Appellate
\nTribunal.  The Learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ
\npetition.  The respondent thereafter preferred a writ appeal before a Division
\nBench of the High Court.  The Division Bench, after hearing of the matter
\nwas of the view that the question involved in the appeal required to be
\ndecided by a Full Bench.  Consequently, the question “whether small portion
\nor portions falling within the limits of a town or village  on a nationalised
\nroute, are to be treated as a route overlapping or intersection” was referred to
\na Full Bench of the High Court for its opinion.\t The Full Bench, by its
\nopinion dated 21.7.88,\tanswered the question as follows:\n<\/p>\n
A small portion\/portions falling within the limits
\nof a town or a village on a nationalised route
\n(notified route) are to be treated as only an
\nintersection of the nationalised route and not as
\noverlapping and therefore, it is permissible to grant
\npermit on the route.\n<\/p>\n
The Full Bench accordingly remitted its opinion to the Division Bench of the
\nHigh Court.  The Division Bench, in view of the opinion given by the Full
\nBench allowed the writ appeal and set aside the judgment of the Learned
\nSingle Judge and remanded the matter to the Appellate Tribunal for
\nconsidering the matter afresh in the light of the opinion given by the Full
\nBench.\tThe Appellate Tribunal, following the Full Bench decision
\ndismissed the appeal preferred by the  appellant.  Consequently, the
\nappellant has filed the appeal by way of Special Leave Petition.  It is in this
\nway these matters have come up before us.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore we advert to the question which we are required to answer, it is
\nnecessary to notice the relevant law as regard the consequences which
\nfollow\twhen a Scheme for total exclusion is prepared and finalised under
\nChapter IVA of the Repealed Act as it stood when the Full Bench of the
\nHigh Court decided the matter and   still continues to be a good law till date.\n<\/p>\n
Every citizen in this country is entitled to carry on a business in
\ntransport for hire or reward.  However, it is subject to the law enacted in
\nrespect thereof.  The Repealed Act regulated the business of plying of stage
\ncarriages for carrying passengers.  Chapter IVA of the Repealed Act also
\nprovided for nationalisation of road transport services.  Section 68-C falling
\nin Chapter IVA provided that the State Transport Undertaking may prepare a
\nscheme for purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and
\nproperly coordinated road transport service to be run and operated by the
\nUndertaking in relation to an area or route or portion thereof. The scheme so
\nproposed may be to the complete exclusion or partial, for other person.\t The
\nscheme so framed was required to be published in the official gazette as to
\ninvite objections to the proposed scheme from travelling public or the
\nexisting transport operators.  Sub-section (1) of Section 68D provided that
\nany person already providing transport facilities on the proposed route by
\nany means, any association representing persons interested in providing road
\ntransport facilities, any local authority or police authority within whose
\njurisdiction any part of the area or route proposed to be covered by the
\nscheme lies, may file objections to the proposed scheme before the State
\nGovernment.  Sub-section (2) of the Section 68D provided that the State
\nGovernment after considering the objections may approve or modify the
\nscheme.\t Sub-section (3) of Section 68D further provided that the scheme as
\napproved  or modified, to be published in the official gazette and on
\npublication in the gazette, the scheme shall become final and shall thereafter
\nbe called the approved scheme.\t Section 68F empowered the Regional
\nTransport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, to
\ngrant to the State Transport Undertaking the necessary permit on its applying
\nfor the same in pursuance of an approved scheme.   Section 68FF further
\nprovided that where a scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of
\nSection 68D in respect of any notified area or notified route, the State
\nTransport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may,
\nshall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the
\nscheme.\t The consequences of an approved scheme under Chapter IVA was
\nthat if the scheme was for total exclusion, no person other than the State
\nTransport Undertaking can operate on the notified route or area except as
\nprovided in the scheme itself.\tIn other words, after the approved scheme
\nunder Chapter IVA came into force, which is for total exclusion, no permit
\ncan be granted to a private operator to operate his vehicle on any part or
\nportion on a notified area or route unless permitted by the terms of the
\nscheme itself.\n<\/p>\n
It is not disputed that the present Scheme is for total exclusion of
\nprivate operators on the notified route or portion thereof.  In H.C.
\nNarayanappa vs. State of Mysore<\/a>\t – 1960 (3) SCR 742, a Constitution
\nBench of this Court held that a scheme framed and approved under Chapter
\nIVA of the Repealed Act is a law within the meaning of Article 13 and 19(6)
\nof the Constitution. It excludes the private operators from notified routes or
\nareas if it is for total exclusion of private operators.  In Nehru Motor
\nTransport Co-operative Society vs. State of Rajasthan and<\/a> another  1964
\n(1) SCR 220, another  Constitution Bench of this Court held that once a
\nscheme was finally approved and published in the gazette, it is a law and
\nfinal.\tIn C.P. C. Motor Service vs. State of Mysore<\/a>  1962 Suppl. (1) SCR
\n717, a scheme  prepared by the State Transport Undertaking which was dully
\napproved  provided that the State Undertaking shall operate services to the
\ncomplete exclusion of other private operators  (i) on all the notified inter-
\ndistrict routes except in regard to the portions of inter-district routes lying
\noutside the limits of Mysore District and also (ii) over the entire length of
\neach of the inter-district route lying within the limits of Mysore District.
\nThe private operators who, on the basis of permits granted to them were
\nplying their vehicles on inter-district and on inter-State routes which
\noverlapped the Mysore District challenged the scheme and argued that their
\npermits should not be affected merely because parts of the routes were
\nwithin the Mysore District. It was also urged that since the termini of their
\nroutes on which they were plying their vehicles were outside Mysore
\nDistrict, it could not be held that any portion of their route had been taken
\nover under the aforesaid Scheme merely because it lay within the Mysore
\nDistrict.  The said contention was rejected by this Court and it was held that
\nno private operator could be allowed to ply his vehicle on the notified
\nportions which was within the Mysore District.\tIn Nilkanth Prasad vs.
\nState of Bihar<\/a>\t1962 Suppl. (1) SCR 728, this Court held thus:\n<\/p>\n
“This means that even in those cases where the
\nnotified route and the route applied for run over a
\ncommon sector, the curtailment by virtue of the
\nnotified scheme would be by excluding that
\nportion of the route or, in other words, the ‘road’
\ncommon to both.\t The distinction between ‘route’
\nas the notional line and ‘road’ as the physical track
\ndisappears in the working of Chapter IVA, because
\nyou cannot curtail the route without curtailing a
\nportion of the road, and the ruling of the Court to
\nwhich we have referred, would also show that even
\nif the route was different, the area at least would be
\nthe same. The ruling of the Judicial Committee
\ncannot be made applicable to the Motor Vehicles
\nAct, particularly Chapter IVA, where the intention
\nis to exclude private operators completely from
\nrunning over certain sectors or routes vested in
\nState Transport Undertakings.  In our opinion,
\ntherefore, the appellants were rightly held to be
\ndisentitled to run over those portions of their routes
\nwhich were notified as part of the scheme.  Those
\nportions cannot be said to be different routes, but
\nmust be regarded as portions of the routes of the
\nprivate operators, from which the private operators
\nstood excluded under Section 68F (2) \u00a9 (iii) of the
\nAct.”\n<\/p>\n
In S. Abdul Khader Saheb vs. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal<\/a>\t1973
\n(1) SCC 357, it was held by this Court that once a scheme is for total
\nexclusion of operation of stage carriage services by operators other than the
\nState Transport Undertaking, the authorities cannot grant permit under
\nChapter IV of the Motor Vehicle Act on any portion of a notified route.\t In
\nMysore State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mysore State Transport
\nAppellate Tribunal<\/a>  1975 (1) SCR 615, it was held that it is not permissible
\nto grant permit on a portion of a notified route which has an effect to ply a
\nstage carriage on the same line of the notified route excepting an
\nintersection.\n<\/p>\n
\tHowever, in Ram Sanehi Singh vs. Bihar State Road Transport
\nCorporation  1971 (3) SCC 797, there was a slight shift from the
\nestablished view of law in regard to the consequence of an approved scheme
\nunder Chapter IVA.  In the said case, a private operator had a permit on a
\nroute which has overlapping of 5 miles on a notified route.  On examination
\nof the Scheme this Court found\tthat the scheme does not show  that the
\nprivate operators have been prohibited from  plying their vehicles and,
\ntherefore, took a view that since the private operator has a corridor
\nrestriction of operation of 5 miles on notified route, his permit to that extent
\nof overlapping portion could be said to be ineffective.\t In Mysore State
\nTransport Corporation vs. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal<\/a>  1975 (1)
\nSCR 493, it was held that a mere physical overlapping of two routes
\nnotified route and inter-State route, is not enough to exclude the private
\ninter-State operators by any necessary implications.  Such an exclusion must
\nbe made clear and unequivocal in the scheme.\n<\/p>\n
\tSince there was a conflict between the two sets of decisions rendered
\nby this Court in Ram Sanehi Singh vs. Bihar State Road Transport
\nCorporation (supra), Mysore State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mysore
\nState Transport Appellate Tribunal<\/a> (supra) and Mysore State Transport
\nCorporation vs. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal<\/a> (supra), the matter was
\nreferred to a Constitution Bench of this Court.\t A  Constitution Bench of this
\nCourt in Adarsh Travels Bus Service and another\t vs.  State of\tU.P. and
\nothers\t– 1985 (4) SCC 557 distinguished the decision  in Ram Sanehi Singh
\nvs. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (supra) for having been decided
\non particular facts of its case but did not approve it.\t However, the decision
\nin Mysore State Transport Corporation vs. Mysore Revenue Appellate
\nTribunal<\/a> (supra) was expressly not approved and whereas the decision in
\nMysore State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mysore State Road Transport
\nAppellate Tribunal<\/a> (supra) was approved.  The Constitution Bench settled
\nthe law by laying down that once a scheme is for total exclusion prohibiting
\nprivate operators from plying stage carriages on a whole or part of a notified
\nroute, no permit can be granted on the notified route or  portion thereof.\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter adverting to the settled law, we shall now proceed to consider
\nthe question that falls for our consideration.\t Learned counsel for the
\nappellant, S\/Shri G.L. Sanghi, Senior Advocate and K.R. Nagaraja,
\nAdvocate contended that in view of the terms of the Scheme, grant of the
\npermit for purpose of plying on the same line of the portion of the notified
\nroute which falls within the limits of town or village is overlapping and not
\nan intersection.  Learned counsel for the respondent, Sh. N.D.B. Raju,
\nAdvocate supported the reasoning given in  the judgment rendered by the
\nFull Bench of Karnataka High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the parties heavily relied upon dictionary
\nmeaning of the expression  ‘intersection’.\n<\/p>\n
In Webster’s Dictionary Vol-I, the word ‘intersection’ means:- as the
\nact of inter-secting the point at which lines cut across each other (or the line
\nat which planes do so), a place where two roads cross each other in-ter-se-
\ntion-al.\n<\/p>\n
In Black’s Dictionary of Law, Fifth Edn., the word ‘intersection’
\nmeans:- as applied to a street or highway means the space occupied by two
\nstreets at the point where they cross each other.  Space common to both
\nstreets or highways, formed by continuing the curb lines.\n<\/p>\n
In Chambers English Dictionary, ‘ intersection’ means to cut across’
\nto curt or cross mutually; to divide into parts, v.i. to cross each other ns.
\nIntersect a point of intersection; intersection intersecting: the point or line in
\nwhich lines or surfaces cut each other (geom); the set of elements which two
\nor more sets have in common (math) : a cross-roads.\n<\/p>\n
The Law Lexicon Reprint Edn. 1987  ‘intersect’ means:- as to cross;
\nliterally, to cur into or between; a word which imports the intersection of one
\nline with another.\n<\/p>\n
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Vol-I defines ‘intersection’ as
\nthe action or fact of intersection; the place where two things intersect;
\nchiefly geom, the point (or line) common to two lines or surfaces which
\ninterest 1559.\n<\/p>\n
\tA reading of the aforesaid dictionary meanings of the word
\n‘intersection’ shows that dictionary gives more than one meaning of the
\nword ‘intersection’.  The expression ‘intersection’ has not been defined in
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Venkateswara
\nHatcheries (P) Ltd.- 1999 (3) SCC 632, it was held thus:\n<\/p>\n
“A reading of the aforesaid dictionary meanings of
\nthe word ‘produce’ does indicate that if a living
\ncreature is brought forth, it can be said that it is
\nproduced.  However, the dictionary gives more
\nthan one meaning of the word ‘produce’.\t Neither
\nthe word ‘produce’ nor the word ‘article has been
\ndefined in the Act.  When the word is not so
\ndefined in the Act, it may be permissible to refer to
\nthe dictionary to find out the meaning of that word
\nas it is understood in\tthe common parlance.  But
\nwhere the dictionary gives divergent or more than
\none meaning of a word, in that case it is not safe to
\nconstrue the said word according to the suggested
\ndictionary meaning of that word.  In such a
\nsituation, the word has to be construed in the
\ncontext of the provisions of  the Act and regard
\nmust also be had to the legislative history of the
\nprovisions of the Act and the scheme of\t the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
Following the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore,
\n(supra) we are, therefore, of the view that the expression ‘intersection’ has to
\nbe understood  in the light of the object and the Scheme behind Chapter IVA
\nof the Repealed Act.\n<\/p>\n
The object and the scheme behind  Chapter IVA of the repealed Act
\nbeing that once a scheme for total exclusion of private operators for a route
\nformulated by a State Transport Undertaking is approved by the government
\nand is published in the official gazette, no permit can be granted to private
\noperators other than the State Transport Undertaking  on a notified route or
\nportion thereof except\tin the terms of the scheme.  This Court in Adarsh
\nTravels Service and another vs. State of U.P.and others (supra) while dealing
\nwith Civil  Appeal Nos.164-166 of 1982 even after finding that there was
\nvery insignificant portion of the route on which the appellants held stage
\ncarriage permits, was included in a notified route yet this Court rejected the
\ncontention of the appellant.  Similarly in C.P.C. Motor Service vs. State of
\nMysore<\/a> (supra), the contention of the private operators who held permits on
\nan inter State route which overlapped the Mysore District, that their permits
\nshould not be cancelled merely because part of the route  is within the
\nMysore District was rejected.  The aforesaid view of this Court is in
\nconsonance with the object and scheme under Chapter IVA of the Repealed
\nAct. We are, therefore, of the view that the expression ‘intersection’ has to
\nbe understood  in the light of the pronouncement of law by this Court in
\nnumber of its decisions.\n<\/p>\n
The expression ‘intersection’ has neither been employed in the
\nRepealed Act nor in the rules framed thereunder.  But it is a product of the
\njudgment of this Court in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation vs.
\nMysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal<\/a> (supra) and the relevant extract
\nof the decision runs as under:\n<\/p>\n
“This Court has consistently taken the view that if
\nthere is prohibition to operate on a notified route or
\nroutes no licences can be granted to any private
\noperator whose route traversed or overlapped any
\npart or whose of that notified route.  The
\nintersection of the notified route may not, in our
\nview, amount to traversing or overlapping the
\nroute because the prohibition imposed applies to a
\nwhole or part of the route on the highway on the
\nsame line of the route.\t An intersection cannot be
\nsaid to be traversing the same line, as it cuts across
\nit.”\n<\/p>\n
The said decision was approved in Constitution Bench decision in Adarsh
\nTravels Bus Service  and another vs. State of U.P. and others (supra).\tThis
\nCourt in the said decision held thus:\n<\/p>\n
“The learned Judges, expressly dissented from the
\ndecision of Beg and Chandrachud, JJ.  In Mysore
\nState Transport Corpn. Vs. Mysore Revenue
\nAppellate Tribunal and approved the decisions of
\nthe court in Nilkanth Prasad case and Abdul
\nKhader case.  We agree with the view taken by this
\nCourt in Mysore State Road Transport Corpn. vs.
\nMysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal and<\/a>
\ndissent from the view taken in Mysore State Road
\nTransport Corpn. vs. Mysore Revenue Appellate
\nTribunal.<\/a>”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
A perusal of aforesaid extracts of two decisions referred to above
\nshows two aspects: 1)  the expression ‘intersection’ was employed in the
\ncontext\t of the settled law as regard the consequences of an approved
\nscheme under Chapter IVA which provided for total exclusion of private
\noperators on the notified route or portion thereof and 2)  while employing
\nthe expression ‘intersection’ in the said decision this Court has explained
\nwhat the  expression ‘intersection’ meant.    Further this Court in the said
\ndecision in very clear terms indicated that  in view of consistent view of this
\nCourt no permit can be granted to operate on a notified route or portion
\nthereof if a scheme prohibit such operation by a private operator and the
\nonly exception is  where a private operator  holding permit on non-notified
\nroute  has to intersect a notified route.  This decision explained that an
\nintersection of a notified route does not amount to traversing or overlapping
\nthe notified route because of the prohibition contain in a scheme applies to a
\nwhole or part of the route on the highway on the same line of the route.  It
\nwas further clarified that an intersection cuts across the notified route and
\ndoes not permit traversing the same line of travel on a notified route.\t The
\nlast line of the passage extracted from decision in Mysore State Transport
\nCorpn. (supra) is very relevant and explains what this Court meant by the
\nexpression ‘intersection’.  The meaning assigned to it is that an intersection
\nis not traversing the same line of travel but it cuts across.  In other words if
\nthe vehicle is to ply on the same line of travel on a notified route it is an
\noverlapping and if a non-notified route cuts across a notified route for its
\nonward journey it is an intersection.\n<\/p>\n
The expression ‘intersection’ has been employed by this Court only to
\nprovide facility to a private operator operating on a non-notified route to
\ncontinue an onward journey if it cuts across a notified route. It appears that
\nthis exception was carried out only to avoid hardships to the travelling
\npublic, otherwise a scheme which is for total exclusion of private operation
\nwas held to be untouchable.\n<\/p>\n
In our opinion there is a clear and obvious distinction between an
\n‘overlapping’ and an ‘intersection’ for purposes of Chapter IVA of the
\nrepealed Act.  In the case of an overlapping a stage carriage is to ply\t on the
\nsame line of travel on a portion of a notified route and it is immaterial
\nwhether it is a small distance of  four or five kilometers falling within the
\nlimits of a village or town.  Whereas in the case of an intersection a non-
\nnotified route only cuts across a notified route for onward journey.  It is only
\nto enable a private operator plying on a non-notified route to a non-notified
\nroute to cut across a notified route.  The exceptions sought to be made by
\nFull Bench in the form of municipal limit or village limit is totally erroneous
\nand that the same defeats the very object behind the scheme which is for
\ntotal exclusion of private operation.  The consistent view of this Court has
\nthrough out been that the scheme is a law and the same has to be preserved
\nand protected in public interest.  Any other view taken contrary to the said
\nview would amount to violating the integrity of an approved scheme under
\nSection 68D of the Repealed Act.  Any slight deviation in the scheme may
\nfrustrate the entire scheme.\n<\/p>\n
An example posed by the Full Bench in its judgment as to what
\nhappens when an operator on a non-notified route has to cut across a notified
\nroute by taking ‘U’ turn on a notified route and then taking left turn to enter
\non a non-notified route was not appropriate.  In such a case, it may not
\namount to overlapping.\tIt would be only intersection.\tThere may be a
\ncrossing where there is an island in the centre\t and a private operator in order
\nto go from non-notified route to another non-notified route has to make a
\nsemi circle of a notified route.  In that case also, it would be not overlapping,
\nbut it would be an intersection because it only cuts across the notified route
\nbecause of size of crossing or traffic regulations.\n<\/p>\n
Merely because a private operator has to traverse on the line of a
\nnotified route for 5 km or for 1.5 km only is no ground to dispense with the
\nmandate of law.\t Such an overlapping also cannot be sustained on the
\nground it relates to a small town.  If such a view of law as propounded by
\nthe Full Bench is to be accepted, it is difficult to be applied where a notified
\nroute passes through bigger towns where involvement is of 10 to 20 km
\nwithin that town.\n<\/p>\n
The view taken by the full bench that where traversing on a notified
\nroute is necessary to continue journey on a non-notified route could be
\nregarded as an intersection is an erroneous view of law. The High Court
\nunder Article 226 of the Constitution is required to enforce rule of law and
\nnot pass order or direction which is contrary to what has been injuncted by
\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n
For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the view taken by
\nthe High Court was contrary to the law which stood settled by this Court in
\nAdarsh Travesls case (supra) and  still holds the field and, therefore, it
\ndeserves to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
Before we part with the case, we would like to observe that the need
\nand convenience of the travelling public is of paramount consideration under
\nthe Act.  A situation may arise when  the Transport Undertaking may be
\nfound not catering to the needs of the traveling public.  In such a situation,
\non representation of travelling public, the State Undertaking or the
\nGovernment, as the case may be, may consider the matter and provide
\nadequate transport services if it is required.\tIn case the Government\tfinds
\nthat the Undertaking lacks vehicles or other infrastructure to provide an
\nefficient and well coordinated\ttransport services to the traveling public, it
\nmay modify the scheme as to permit private operator to ply vehicles on such
\nroute or routes.  In any case  it is always permissible to the legislature to
\namend  law by providing private operators to run an efficient and well
\ncoordinated transport services on such route or routes on payment of
\nadequate royalty  to the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
For the\t aforesaid reasons, the judgments and order including State
\nTransport Appellate Tribunal under appeal are set aside.  The matters are
\nsent back to the Learned Single Judge of the High Court to decide the
\nmatters\t within three months of production of certified copy of this judgment
\nin the light of what has been stated above.  The appeals are allowed. There
\nshall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t       ..J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t       (V. N. Khare)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t      ..J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t      (Ashok Bhan)
\nJanuary 14, 2002<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Karnataka State Road Transport … vs Ashrafulla Khan And Others on 14 January, 2002 Author: V N Khare Bench: V.N. Khare, Ashok Bhan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1341 of 1990 PETITIONER: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. RESPONDENT: ASHRAFULLA KHAN AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/01\/2002 BENCH: V.N. Khare & Ashok […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-67593","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKarnataka State Road Transport ... vs Ashrafulla Khan And Others on 14 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Ashrafulla Khan And Others on 14 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-12T17:00:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Karnataka State Road Transport … vs Ashrafulla Khan And Others on 14 January, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-12T17:00:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002\"},\"wordCount\":4747,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002\",\"name\":\"Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Ashrafulla Khan And Others on 14 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-12T17:00:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Karnataka State Road Transport … vs Ashrafulla Khan And Others on 14 January, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Ashrafulla Khan And Others on 14 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Ashrafulla Khan And Others on 14 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-12T17:00:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Karnataka State Road Transport … vs Ashrafulla Khan And Others on 14 January, 2002","datePublished":"2002-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-12T17:00:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002"},"wordCount":4747,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002","name":"Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Ashrafulla Khan And Others on 14 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-12T17:00:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-ashrafulla-khan-and-others-on-14-january-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Karnataka State Road Transport … vs Ashrafulla Khan And Others on 14 January, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67593","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=67593"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67593\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67593"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67593"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67593"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}