Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs Baby P. P. & Ors.

HELD: 1.1 The law governing the formulation of schemes is found in Sections 99 and 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Chapter VI of the Act deals with special provisions relating to State Transport Undertaking (STUs). Preparation and publication of proposals regarding road transport services of the STU has been dealt with under Section 99. If the State Government is of the opinion that for the purpose of providing efficient, adequate, economical, and properly guaranteed road transport services in relation to any area or route or operation thereto, these road transport services should be run and operated by the STU to the exclusion (complete or partial) of private stage carriage operators, a proposal in the Official Gazette shall be published as provided under Section 99. After considering the objections, if any, and after giving an opportunity to the objectors or their representatives and the representatives of the STU, the State Government may approve or modify such proposals. The approved or modified scheme will be published in the Official Gazette of the State Government, apart from newspapers, under Section 100(3). After publication, the scheme shall be final and the same is called “the approved scheme”. The area or the route, to which the scheme relates, shall be called “Notified Area” or “Notified Route”. Section 103 deals with the issue of permits by the STU pursuant to the scheme, if approved. Section 104 relates to the restrictions on grant of permits in respect of the notified area or notified route. [Paras 11, 12] [758-G; 759-F-H; 760-A-C]

1.2 Section 104 makes it amply clear that where a scheme has been published under Section 100(3) of the Act in respect of any notified area or notified route, grant of any permit on the notified route or area is impermissible, except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. However, the proviso clarifies that wherever the STU has not sought any permit in respect of any notified route or notified area in pursuance to the scheme, the RTA (or STA, as the case may be) may grant a temporary permit to any private stage carriage operator in respect of such notified area or notified route, on the condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the STU in respect of that area or route. The scheme formulated and published by the State Government under Section 100 (3) of the Act holds the fort in all matters involving permits. [Paras 15, 16] [761-A-C, D]

1.3 The proviso to Section 104 of the Act cannot be read aloof from the main section. A plain reading of the proviso to Section 104 makes it clear that temporary permits can be granted to the private sector, wherever the STU does not operate its service. However, the proviso is also subject to the stipulations of the scheme, akin to the main section. Since the Scheme on hand partially excludes private stage carriage operators on the notified route, the same is to be adhered to. It is necessary in the public interest that road transport services on notified routes should be run and operated by the STU to the complete or partial exclusions of private stage carriage operators. In a State where the scheme has been published, subject to such scheme formulated by the State, no private stage carriage operator can operate beyond the stipulations of the scheme. This also applies to applications for temporary permits under the proviso to Section

104 of the Act. [Paras 17, 18] [762-F; 763-C-D]

1.4 The route from Angamaly to Perumbavoor is

undisputedly a notified route. The STU thus has the exclusive right or monopoly to ply its stage carriages and obtain the required permit as per the Scheme to the exclusion of private stage carriage operators. The proviso gives only a limited breath of life to the private sector, viz., only if the vehicles of the STU do not operate on the notified route as per the scheme, in which event temporary permits may be granted to the private stage carriage operators. In the matter on hand, undisputedly, more than 450 buses of the STU ply everyday on the notified route which pass from Angamaly to Perumbavoor. It is not open for the respondent no.1 to claim that the STU is not running sufficient buses from Palliserry to Perumbavoor via Angamaly. Admittedly, Palliserry to Angamaly is not a notified route. The dispute between the parties, thus, virtually relates to the route between Angamaly to Perumbavoor and not the route between Palliserry to Angamaly. Even otherwise it is not disputed that the STU is plying

8 trips from Palliserry to Perumbavoor via Angamaly. Apart from the same, the private sector is operating sufficient number of services from Palliserry to Angamaly. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the STU that the STU may provide more buses if required between Palliserry to Angamaly. Moreover, it is open for the respondent no.1 to seek permission as per law before the concerned authority and ply its buses on the non-notified route. However, when it comes to operating on the notified route, that is, in between Angamaly and Perumbavoor, the respondent no.1 cannot operate its services for more than 5 kms or 5% of its route (whichever is less). Admittedly, part of the respondent no.1’s route measuring 13 kms is between Angamaly and Perumbavoor, and that entire patch of 13 kms overlaps the notified route. The total route length applied for by the respondent no.1 is only 28 kms. The overlap thus, permitted on the notified route (in the case on hand) as per the Scheme could only be 1.4 kms whereas the respondent no.1 wants to overlap by 13 kms, i.e. approximately 50% of his route, which is totally impermissible and the same is rightly objected to by the STU, particularly when the STU is operating 452 buses (amounting to 770 trips) in a day on the said route. [Paras 19, 20] [763-E-H; 764-B-D]

1.5 The Scheme is a law by itself and until it is varied according to law, no private stage carriage operator has any right to camouflage any device to obtain the permits. The new route introduced by the respondent no.1 fuses a non-notified route (to an extent of 15 kms) and a notified route (to an extent of 13 kms), totally measuring 28 kms. This is contrary to the approved Scheme, since such newly introduced route by the respondent No.1 overlaps with 13 kms of the notified route, which is prohibited as per the Scheme. The RTA was justified in rejecting the claim of the respondent no.1 seeking temporary permit on the notified route, since the respondent no.1 has sought a temporary permit for the route which overlaps by 13 kms on the notified route; such overlap is clearly prohibited under the Scheme. [Paras 25-27] 768-B-C, E-F]

1.6 Moreover, overlapping to the extent of 5 kms or 5% of the route of respondent no.1 (whichever is less), is only for purposes of intersection under the Scheme. The intersection of the notified route may not be the same as traversing and overlapping with the route, because the prohibition under the Scheme must apply to the whole or a part of the notified route, and private stage carriage operators cannot be allowed to traverse the same line in the guise of intersection. In this case, as the stage carriage services of the respondent no.1 are to operate on a notified route to an extent of 13 kms, it cannot be considered an intersection. Intersection means “to cut across”. It is permissible for any private stage carriage operator, under the Scheme in question, to traverse on a notified route up to the permissible limit as contemplated under the Scheme only for the purpose of cutting across the notified route, and to proceed further on a non-notified route. Only in such a case can the temporary permit be granted. [Para 28] [768-G-H; 769-A-C]

1.7 There is a clear distinction between overlapping and intersection. The expression “intersection” is not defined in the Act. The meaning of the word “intersection” as provided generally in various dictionaries is “cutting across”. The word has to be construed in the context of the provision of the Act and scheme of the Act. The “Scheme” intends total exclusion of private stage carriage operators for a notified route except for “intersecting” it is not open for the authorities to grant permits to private stage carriage operators to operate on the notified route but may be permitted merely to intersect within permissible limits. The “intersection” thus, is not traversing the same line of travel beyond permitted limits, but to cut across a notified route for its onward journey. This exception is carved out only to avoid hardships to travellers. Any other view contrary to the above view would amount to violating integrity of an approved Scheme. An intersection is permissible, while an overlap is not. [Para 29] [769-D; 770-B-D]

1.8 Except for exceptional circumstance of cutting across the notified route, the scheme totally excludes private stage carriage operators on the notified route. In case of overlapping, such carrier would ply on the same line to travel on a portion of the notified route, whereas in case of intersection, the private stage carriage operator’s route only cuts across the notified route for its onward journey. Since the scheme is a law, the same has to be preserved and protected in public interest. Since it is not a case of intersection as contemplated under Clause 5(c) of the Scheme, and as the overlapping sought by the respondent no.1 is more than both 5 kms or 5% of his total route, the prayer of respondent no.1 must be rejected. However, Clauses 5(c) and 6 of the Scheme provide that the private stage carriages would be allowed to pick up and drop passengers in between any two places on the route covered by the Scheme, provided that the route of the private stage carriage overlaps the notified route maximum to an extent of 5 kms or 5% of the length of its own route (whichever is less). [Paras 30, 31] [771-D-F]

1.9 The respondent no. 1 does not fall within the proviso to Section 104 of the Act. Both parties admit that the appellant is running sufficient number of buses on the notified route. Since it is found that the Respondent no.1 is not entitled to ply stage carriage buses on the notified routes, the temporary permit granted by the RTA on 23.02.2017, consequent to the order of the STAT remanding the matter to the RTA, in favour of respondent no.1 is set aside. [Paras 32, 36] [771-G-H; 774-C]

1.10 In view of this discussion, the following answer emerges:

(i) A temporary permit cannot be issued to a private stage carriage operator to traverse on the notified route which is being served by the STU, in excess of the permissible distance provided under the scheme.

(ii)Under the facts of this case, it is not open for a private stage carriage operator (the respondent no.1) to operate its services by overlapping on a notified route for more than 5 kms or 5% (whichever is less) of the route of the private stage carriage operator (as specified under the Scheme) which is being served by the STU. [Para 37] [774-C-E]

Punjab Roadways v. Punjab Sahib Bus & Transport Co. (2010) 5 SCC 235 : [2010] 5 SCR 256 –

distinguished.

Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (1985) 4 SCC 557– followed.

Gajraj Singh & Ors. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 650 : [1996] 6 Suppl. SCR 172 ; Dwarka Prasad v. Dwarka Das Saraf

(1976) 1 SCC 128 : [1976] 1 SCR 277 ; U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation v. Anwar Ahmed & Ors. (1997) 3 SCC 191 : [1996] 7 Suppl. SCR 98 ; Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal (1974) 2 SCC 750 : [1975] 1 SCR 615 ; Karnataka SRTC v. Ashrafulla Khan (2002) 2 SCC 560 : [2002] 1 SCR 194 ; U.P. SRTC and Another v. Sanjida Bano and Others

(2005) 10 SCC 280 – relied on.

Black’s Dictionary of Law, 5th Edn. ; Law Lexicon, Reprint Edn., 1987; Chambers English Dictionary; Webster’s Dictionary, Vol. I ; Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. I ; Concise Oxford Dictionary – referred to.