Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8.3. According to KSRTC, even traversing the notified Route for a short distance of 200 Metres within the City and traversing of 54 Meters to enter the non-notified route outside the City, have to be treated as overlapping. Placing strong reliance on three Decisions of the Supreme Court in MSRTC v. MSTAT, ; ADARSH TRAVEL BUS SERVICE v. STATE OF UP, and MSRTC v. B.T. Rudramani, KSRTC contended that any use of the notified route other than cutting across a notified route, would be overlapping of the notified route and any traversing of a notified route for howsoever a short distance, even for short distances of 200 Mtrs or 54 Mtrs, will amount to overlapping and not intersection.

9.1. In Adarsh Travels, the Supreme Court considered the question whether a private operator having a permit in respect of a route, which has a common overlapping section with a notified route, can use the said common overlapping portion, it he does not pick up or drop passengers on the overlapping part of the route. The Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in MSRTC's case and further held as follows:

"Once a scheme is published under Section 68D in relation to any area or route or portion thereof, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial or other persons or otherwise, no person other than the State Transport Undertaking may operate on the notified area or notified route except as provided in the scheme itself. A necessary consequence of these provisions is that no private operator can operate his vehicle on any part or portion of a notified area or notified route unless authorised to do so by the terms of the scheme itself.... On the other hand, it is quite well known that under the guise of the so-called 'corridor restrictions' permits over longer routes which cover shorter notified routes or 'overlapping' parts of notified routes are more often than not misutilised since it is next nigh impossible to keep a proper check at ever point of the route. It is also well known that often times permits for plying stage carriages from a point a short distance beyond one terminus to a point short distance beyond another terminus of a notified route have been applied for and granted subject to the so called 'corridor restrictions' which are but mere ruses or traps to obtain permits and to frustrate the scheme. If indeed there is any need for protecting the travelling public from inconvenience as suggested by the learned counsel, we have no doubt that the State Transport Undertaking and the Government will make a sufficient provision in the scheme itself to avoid inconvenience being caused to the travelling public."

10.1 The next is of another Division Bench Decision of this Court in KSRTC & A.S. ANNEGOWDA v. KSTAT, W.As. Nos. 789 & 828 of 1980 DD 7.11.1985 wherein this Court after considering Adarsh Travels Case, reiterated that when two routes have a common stretch within the limits of a village or town it cannot be regarded as a non-notified route overlapping the notified route. The test applied was that if the distance was so short that no passenger would in normal circumstances think of boarding at one point of the common stretch and getting down at another point in the same common stretch, then it would be an intersection, The Division Bench however cautioned that if any stretch traversed, was of considerable length, and if there is a possibility of passengers boarding at one point and alighting at another point, then irrespective of the fact that the traversing is within a city, town or village limits, the decision in Adarsh Travels will apply and it would amount to overlapping.

11.1. In Sanaulla's case, the permit holder relying on the full Bench Decision in Ashrafulla's case contended that as the 'overlappings' complained of were within town limits, they had to be treated as intersections. On behalf of the KSRTC, it was stated that Ashrafulla's case is pending in Appeal, before the Supreme Court and the operation of the said Decision had been stayed. The Division Bench recorded the said statement made on behalf of the KSRTC and therefore did not consider or follow the Decision of the Full Bench in Ashrafulla's case. The Division Bench did not examine Whether short overlapping amounted to 'intersection' in the light of the Full Bench Decision in Ashrafulla's case or the other three Division Bench Decisions of this Court referred to above, but merely followed the Decision in Adarsh Travels and held that even a slightest overlapping over a notified route is impermissible. It later transpired that the operation of the Full Bench Decision in Ashrafulla has not been stayed by the Supreme Court. It was also evident that in Rudramani, Supreme Court did not lay down any new principle, but merely reiterated what has been stated in the case of Adarsh Travels. However as a cloud was raised about the correctness of the Decision in Ashrafulla, the question was referred to a Division Bench, in W.P. 39903/1993. By an order dated 24.2.1995, the Division Bench held that the law laid down by the Full Bench in Ashrafulla is the law on this issue so far as this Court is concerned.