AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Raikote, J.—The petitioner has questioned the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, dated 28-3-1994 passed on its file No. A.P. 973/93. By this order, the said Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, confirming the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, dated 24-5-1993. Both the authorities dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for grant of one pucca stage Carriage permit regarding the route applied for by the petitioner, on the ground that a distance of 1.6 K.Ms. overlaps on the notified route approved in G.O.Ms.No. 782.
The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed both the judgments by raising the following points:
(1) That the alleged overlapping to the extent of 1.6 K.Ms. is only an inter - section and the same is permissible.
(2) That on the same route, a permit is granted to another person on 29-11-1989. However, the said permit was challenged in Revision Petition No. R.P.No. 18/92. By dismissing the said revision petition, the permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority to that other person is confirmed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that regarding the same route, when the said overlapping is considered as an intersection, the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit.
(3) At any rate, both the authorities are in error in rejecting the application filed by by petitioner in its entirety. The overlapping portion is only a small extent of 1.3. K.Ms. and it is over a bridge inside the town. Therefore, the petitioner, at least could have been granted permit by excluding that overlapping portion.
Elaborating the first point, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said overlapping of 1.3 K.Ms. is a matter of intersection and the same is permissible. He relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Karnataka reported in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and Others, . On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C. relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in W.A.Nos. 206 and 207 of 1995, dated 31-10-1995.
I have gone through both the judgments. In Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and Others, , relying on certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal, , the High Court of Karnataka held that a small portion of overlapping in a town would be an intersection. Even if the scheme provides a total prohibition, such intersection would be permissible. But, the principles laid down in the judgment of the Karnataka High Court (1st cited supra), which was followed by the Full Bench Judgment, dated 21-7-1988 of the same Court in W.A. No. 403 of 1988, was considered by the Division Bench of this Court, In W.A. Nos. 206 and 207 of 1995. In the said judgment, dated 31-10-1995, the Division Bench of this Court, which is binding on me, has dissented from the Karnataka High Court view. The Division Bench of this Court has extracted the law laid down by the Supreme Court reported in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal, as under:
"This Court has consistently taken the view that if there is a prohibition to operate on a notified route or routes no licences can be granted to any private operator whose route traversed or overlapped any part or whole of that notified route. The intersection of the notified route may not, in our view, amount to traversing or overlapping the route because the prohibition imposed applies to a whole or a part of the route on the highway on the same line of the route. An intersection cannot be said to be traversing the same line, as it cuts across it."
From the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, and also from the judgment of the Supreme Court, what emerges is that an ''inter-section'' at the point, where the route permitted to a private operator crossed the notified route, there will be slight overlapping, at the crossing point, and such an overlapping at that crossing point cannot be construed as overlapping. But, in the instant case, the distance of 1.3. K.Ms. cannot be said to be an inter-section. The Chambers Dictionary has given the meaning of the words ''intersect'' and ''intersection'' as under:
"Intersect:-vt. to cut across; to cut or cross mutually; to divide into parts. - vis. to cross each other. -n. intersect a point of intersection; - intersection intersecting; the point or line on which lines or surfaces cut each other (geom); the set of elements which two or more sets have in common (math.); a crossroads-adj. intersectional (L. inter between, and secare. sectum to cut)".
From this Dictionary meaning given to the word ''intersect'', it is clear that it is a point where one road cuts across the other road. From this meaning, it is further clear that an intersection of the road is a point where one road has to cross another road. In fact, such points in the road are commonly known as junction, cross-roads or circles.
Thus, what is permitted is only to cross the road and not to go on the same line of the route. For example, suppose if a private operator has to go on a road from point ''A'' to ''B'' and if the road has to cross a nationalised road from point ''C'' and ''D'', the said road of the private operator crosses the nationalised road at the point ''E''. Thus, point ''E'' is the intersection, which is permissible. (See Figure 1.) On the other hand, if a private operator has his route from point ''A'' to ''B'' and if he has to cross the nationalised road ''CD'', in that event if he has to take his bus from point ''E'' to ''F'' so as to take turn towards point ''B'' of his road, the distance between the point ''E'' and ''F'' is not an intersection, but it is overlapping, since from point ''E'' to ''F'', he has to go along with the line of the road. This kind of overlapping is prohibited, whatever the length of distance, if the scheme provides a total prohibition. (See Figure 2). In the instant case, the overlapping distance of 1.3. K.Ms. is along with the line of the road which is prohibited by the scheme. More over, the very scheme has been considered by this Court in its judgment, dated 26-6-1991 in W.P.No. 14397 of 1990 by holding that the said scheme provides for a total prohibition. The said view of the learned single Judge has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, vide its judgment, dated 14-10-1992 in W.A.No. 56 of 1992. In this judgment, it has been held that no permit shall be granted even if there is a little overlapping. In this view of the matter, I reject the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the same route, some of the persons have been granted permit on 29-11-1989 by the Regional Transport Authority and the same is confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal vide judgment, dated 10-3-1992 in R.P.No. 18 of 1992. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made available to me the order passed in that Revision Petition R.P.No. 18/92, which has been disposed of along with Appeal No. 101/90. The appellate tribunal in that case confirmed the order of the Regional Transport Authority by holding an overlapping to the extent of 1K.M. was an intersection by following the ruling of the High Court of Karnataka in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and Others, . But, as I have noticed above, the principle laid down in the said judgment and also the principle laid down in the Full Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court has been dissented by the Division Bench of this Court in W. A. Nos. 206 and 207 of 1995, dated 31-10-1995. From this, it follows that this judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in W. A.Nos. 206 and 207 of 1995 was not available for the benefit of the Tribunal when it decided the Revision Petition No. R.P 18/92, dated 10-3-1992. Therefore, it follows that the order in R.P .No. 18/92 was proceeded on an erroneous principle of law and the said instance cannot be cited as a principle for the purpose of this case. Every application filed for the grant of pucca Stage Carriage Permit has to be considered as per the law as on the date of that application. Therefore, as per the law now declared by the Division Bench of this Court, an overlapping to an extent of 1.6 K.Ms. cannot be construed as an intersection. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot seek the support from the order of the appellate tribunal passed in R.P.No. 18/92. Hence, I hereby reject the second contention also.
So far as the third point is concerned, there is some substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has sought pucca stage carriage permit on the existing town service route from Mandapeta bus stand to Rayavaram. The total length of the route is 16.5 K.Ms. Out of which, a distance beyond the Municipal limit is 14.7 K.Ms. The overlapping portion is only to the extent of 1.3. K.Ms. as per the finding given by the appellate tribunal, though it is stated in the order of the Regional Transport Authority that such overlappling was 1.6. K.Ms. Now it is not disputed before me that such overlapping is a distance of 1.3. K.Ms. A rough sketch has been furnished to me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This sketch has not been disputed by the respondent and in fact, he produced another sketch, which is also similar to the one produced by the petitioner. In the sketch furnished by the petitioner, now I have marked the three points as ''A'' ''B'' and ''C''. The route for which an application is filed is from point ''A'' to point ''C. The overlapping of 1.3. K.Ms. is between the point ''B'' to point ''C'' and this fact has not been disputed by either side. The last point ''C would end in Mandapeta bus stand. The overlapping portion between the point ''B'' and ''C is at the end of the route as prayed for by the petitioner, and the same can be excluded, and if it is excluded, there cannot be any objection for granting the permit from point ''A'' to point ''B'' on any ground. However, it is submitted before me by the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, that between point ''A'' and point ''B'', also there is an overlapping with reference to the other schemes. But, the same is not demonstrated before me. More over, that was not the point canvassed either before the Regional Transport Authority or before the appellate tribunal. Both these authorities rejected the application filed by the petitioner only on the ground that there is overlapping of 1.3. K.Ms. between point ''B'' and point ''C''. Having regard to these circumstances pleaded and proved, I am of the opinion that the overlapping portion between the point ''B'' and point ''C may be excluded and the petitioner is entitled to grant of pucca stage carriage permit from point ''A'' to point ''B''.
In this view of the matter, I pass the order as under: The writ petition is partly allowed by disallowing the overlapping portion of 1.3 K.Ms. between the point ''B'' and the point ''C''. I hereby direct the respondent No. 2 to grant pucca stage carriage permit to the petitioner from the point ''A'' to point ''B''. The sketch filed by the petitioner shall be treated as part of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.