Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. In what circumstances traversing of a notified route is permitted as 'intersection' have been considered by this Court in several Decisions. The first is a Decision of a Division Bench of this Court in KSRTC v. KSRT TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, wherein this Court after referring to the Decision of the Supreme Court in MSRTC held that if traversing of short distances, can be termed as intersections, having regard to the facts, such traversing will not be overlappings of notified routes. The following observations are worth reproduction:

(b) While overlapping of the notified route or any portion of the notified route, by the route of the private stage carriage is impermissible, intersecting of the notified route, by the non-notified route of the private stage carriage, is not prohibited.

(c) Though intersection normally means cutting across the notified route, having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is possible to treat traversing the notified route for a short distance, as intersecting the notified route and not overlapping. Where such short traversing is within the village or town limits or is on account of traffic restrictions or regulations or is on account of want of any other access to the non-notified route, the same will normally be treated as intersections. In all other cases, traversing of even small distances on the notified route will be treated as overlapping.

(d) Whether traversing the notified route for a short distance would amount to overlapping or intersecting, and what should be considered as a 'short distance' will depend on the facts of each case. If there is any possibility of passengers getting in at any point of the common section and thereafter getting out in another portion of the common section, that would be a strong indication of overlapping. Traversing a short distance of the notified route out of necessity or on account of traffic regulations will normally be intersections.

15.2. Learned Counsel for KSRTC contended that the Tribunal neither held local inspection in regard to these sections nor obtained any Route Survey Report, but merely proceeded on the basis that the said sections fell within town/village limits. He also stated that the earlier order of the Tribunal in URA 754/1986 dated 25.10.1990 (N.R. REVANNA v. RTO, TUMKUR) relied on by the Tribunal has been challenged by KSRTC and the matter is now pending in this Court. He also urged that even assuming that each of these stretches, that is Paschimavahini to Srirangapatna, Srirangapatna to Kirangur Cross and Kirangur Cross to Lokpavani Bridge, may be a short stretch falling within town or village limits, together the three stretches measured 4.5 K.M. and such a long distance cannot be considered as an intersection. He contended that 4.5 K.M. is sufficiently long to enable passengers to get in and get out from a bus, within that distance. He, therefore, submitted that these three stretches taken together, will bring it within the mischief of overlapping. Reliance was also placed on the Decision of this Court in N. BASAVAPPA v. MRAT, 1973(1) Mys. L.J. 500.