Judgment:
ORDER
Raveendran, J.
1. The petitioner in W.P. 26187 to 26198/1992 is the State Road Transport Undertaking ('KSRTC' for short). Petitioner challenges the order dated 2.4.1992 (Annexure-A) of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) directing grant of renewal of stage carriage permits to the third respondent in each of the said Petitions. The main Question that arises for Consideration in these cases is whether and in what circumstances traversing a notified route for a short distance, can be termed as intersection and not overlapping.
2. The third respondent in each of the twelve Petitions sought renewal of their stage carriage permits relating to routes which included Mysore to KRS, Mysore to Bannur, Mysore to Honnavar, Mysore to Malavalli, Mysore to Kirangur Cross, Mysore to Tumkur, Bannur to Malavalli, KRS to Bylur and Saggyam to KRS. The line of travel of these routes traversed all or any of the following three sections of notified routes: (i) Mysore Bus Stand - Sanatorium-District Border - Pump house; (ii) Paschimavahini - Srirangapatna Town -Kirangur Cross; and (iii) Kirangur Cross to Lokapavani Bridge. KSRTC opposed grant of renewals to the said permit holders on the ground that the section between Mysore Bus Stand - Sanatorium -District Border was a part of the routes notified under the Mysore Scheme; and that the Sections between Paschimavahini to Kirangur Cross and Kirangur Cross and Lokapavani Bridge were parts of routes notified under the Mysore Shimoga Scheme and Mysore Bangalore Scheme; and the said Schemes excluded private operators on the routes notified thereunder (except to the extent, if any, saved under the Schemes). The RTA, Mysore and the RTA, Mandya, taking note of the objections, either rejected the applications for renewal or granted renewals subject to partial deviation/curtailment of the routes. The aggrieved permit holders filed appeals before the Tribunal. These appeals were heard and disposed of by a common order dated 2.4.1992.
3. Before the Tribunal, the permit holders contended that the notified route between Mysore to District Border was through Hinkal and not through Sanatorium. They contended that they have been operating their services for several decades by traversing the Section between Mysore to District Border through Sanatorium and KSRTC had never objected to such operations and had in tact in an earlier proceeding, admitted that the Notified route in regard to Mysore to KRS was the section between Mysore Town to District Border through Hinkal and not through Sanatorium. However, alternatively they suggested a different route from Mysore Suburban Bus Stand to District Border through Jawa Factory, Brindavan Extension, Metagalli, Hebbal Housing Colony, Vikrant Radial Factory, KAP Chemicals, Vanivalas Reservoir, and Sunanda Aromatics, which joined the Mysore KRS Road, just before the District Border. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal personally inspected the said alternative route with reference to a route map on 7.3.1992.
4. The Tribunal held that the section between Mysore Bus Stand -Sanatorium - District Border (9.5 KM), on the Mysore - Pump house -KRS Route, was a notified route on which private operators are excluded. The Tribunal, however found that the alternative route suggested by the permit holders did not involve any overlapping, even though the said route traversed the notified route, on two short stretches of 200 M and 54 M. The Tribunal also held that traversing the sections between Paschimavahini - Srirangapatna - Kirangur Cross and Kirangur Cross to Lokapavani Bridge did not amount to overlapping of any notified route as the first stretch fell within the town limits of Srirangapatna and the second stretch fell within the village limits of Kirangur. Consequently the Tribunal allowed the appeals and directed renewal of the permits subject however to deviation of the route between Mysore Bus Stand and District Border through the alternative route.
5. KSRTC has challenged the Order dated 2.4.1992 of the Tribunal granting renewals on two grounds (in W.P. 26 87 to 26198/1992):
5.1) The alternative route between Mysore Bus Stand to District Border suggested by the permit holders ought to have been rejected by the Tribunal as it overlapped the notified route (Mysore - KRS Road) over two stretches, near Metagalli Police Station and near Sunanda Aromatics Factory and as the alternative route passed through a private Road belonging to KIADB.
5.2) The use of the notified routes, in respect of sections between Paschimavahini Srirangapatna - Kirangur Cross (about 3.4 KM) and Kirangur Cross to Lokapavani Bridge (0.85 KM) amounted to overlapping and not intersections;
6. On 4.2.1994, this Court stayed the order dated 2.4.1992 of the Tribunal subject to the condition that if the third Respondent in each of the Petitions was already operating the service, he may continue to do so till the expiry of their current permit or till the Writ Petitions are disposed of, whichever was earlier. By a further Order dated 6.2.1995 this Court clarified that the Interim Order dated 4.2.1994 will not prevent the permit holders from applying for renewal or variations of their permits and the RTA should consider such applications, uninfluenced by the impugned order dated 2.4.1992 of the Tribunal which had been stayed on 4.2.1994. Three of the permit holders, namely, the third respondent in W.P. 28187, 28188 & 28189/1992 who were operating their services and whose permits were to expire on 31.3.1995, applied for renewal to the RTA, Mysore, who rejected the said applications for renewal by order dated 5.4.1994 (Annexure-E). The Tribunal rejected the appeals filed by the said permit holders in AP No. 995, 997 and 1000 of 1995 by order dated 24.6.1995. The said three permit holders have filed W.P. 28995 to 28997/1995 challenging the order of the RTA dated 5.4.1995 (Annexure-E) and the order of the Tribunal dated 24.6.1995 (Annexure-G) in so far as their permits are concerned and have sought a direction to respondents to grant renewal of their permits.
Re: W.P. 26187 to 26198/1992.
7. The first contention of KSRTC is that the Tribunal, having found that the routes in regard to which renewals were sought traversed the notified route Mysore Town - Sanatorium - District Border, ought to have rejected the appeals instead of considering an alternative route and granting permit in regard to a deviated route. In MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. B.T. RUDRAMANI AND ORS., C.A. Nos. 1255-56 of 1975 DD 23.11.1989, the Supreme Court held that in the case of a stage carriage permit held for several years, if it is found that the route overlapped a notified route, the permit shall however be continued till its expiry and the question of overlapping should be considered at the time of renewal, so that the permit holder can suggest an alternative route after curtailing the overlapping portion. As what can be done by the original authority can also be done by the Appellate Authority, the Tribunal itself considered the availability of the alternative route. If the permit could be saved by deviation or curtailment and if the permit holder is agreeable for the same, it is the duty of the Authority to consider it. Hence the first contention is rejected.
8. The second contention of KSRTC is that the alternative route between Mysore Bus Stand to District Border suggested by the permit holders and accepted by the Tribunal involves two overlappings to an extent of 200 Mtrs from Metagalli Police Station Hebbal Cross and 600 Mtrs from Sunanda Aromatic Factory cross to District Border, and that it also passed through a private road and therefore the alternative route should be rejected. This involves three questions: What is the extent of traversing of the notified route by the non-notified route; and whether the alternative route passes through any private road; and whether traversing of the notified route at two places, amount to overlappings or intersections. The first and second are pure questions of fact and the third is a mixed question of fact and law. In regard to such questions, if the Authority, having taken note of the relevant facts and legal principles, has properly reached a conclusion, this Court in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction will not interfere with such a finding, particularly when the fact finding has been done by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, a Senior District Judge, by local investigation in the presence of parties.
8.1. The Tribunal on personal inspection found that the alternative route traverses the Notified Route (Mysore - KRS Road) from Metagalli Police Station to Hebbal Cross Road for a distance of only 200 Metres within the City limits and therefore it was an intersection. The Tribunal also found that the alternative route traversed the said notified route, at another section, that is from Sunanda Aromatics to the District Border, the distance so traversed (that is between the place where the road from Vikrant Radials joins the Mysore - KRS Road near Sunanda Aromatics to the Mysore District Border) was only 54 metres and not 600 metres as contended by KSRTC. Though the said section of 54 Metres fell beyond the Mysore City Limits, having regard to the shortness of the distance to be travelled to reach the non-notified route and the absence of any other access to the non-notified route, the Tribunal held that the traversing of the said 54 Metres is also an inter-section and not an overlapping, KSRTC has neither alleged nor made out any factual error on the part of the Tribunal in regard to ascertaining the length of the two common stretches. Hence the finding of the Tribunal that the distance traversed on the notified Mysore KRS Road is only 200 M and 54 M has to be accepted.
8.2. According to KSRTC the alternative route passed through some private roads in the Industrial Layout formed by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, a Statutory Body, and therefore could not be accepted. KSRTC did not produce any material to show that the roads in the said Industrial Layout are private roads. Having inspected the entire length of the alternative route, the Tribunal did not find that any part of the route was either non-motor able or not open to public. In the light of the Tribunal's personal verification, the contention of KSRTC that the alternative route passes through a private road cannot be accepted. It may be mentioned that by letter dated 26.4.1995, KIADB has confirmed that it has formed the roads in its layout for the use of public and therefore it has no objection for use of the roads in the Industrial Layout by any private transport operators.
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, : [1975]1SCR615 ; ADARSH TRAVEL BUS SERVICE v. STATE OF UP, : AIR1986SC319 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. Let me now consider the said three Decisions of the Supreme Court. In the first case (MSRTC v. MSTAT, : [1975]1SCR615 the Supreme Court held as follows:
'It is therefore apparent that where a private transport owner makes an application to operate on a route, which overlaps even a portion of the notified route, that is, where the part of the highway to be used by private transport owner traverses on a line on the same highway on the notified route, then that application has to be considered only in the light of the scheme as notified. If any conditions are placed then those conditions have to be fulfilled and if there is a total prohibition then the application must be rejected....
This Court has consistently taken the view that if there is 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 applied to a whole or 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.'
9.1. In Adarsh Travels, : AIR1986SC319 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.'
9.2 In Rudramani's Case, the Supreme Court was considering a case where there was overlapping at three short stretches, the first of 3 miles, and the other two of 1 mile 3 furlongs each. After referring to the Adarsh Travels' case, it was held that where private permits are excluded in the Scheme itself, overlapping even on a short part of the route with a condition that a permit holder shall not pick up or drop the passengers on the short overlapping route, could not be granted.
9.3. A careful examination of the said three Decisions of the Supreme Court discloses that the question that was considered in all the said three Cases was whether overlapping on the notified route should be permitted, under the guise of corridor restrictions or otherwise. The answer was a categorical 'No'. None of these three Cases however examined or laid down any principle as to in what circumstances, traversing a notified route for a short distance can be considered as merely intersecting a notified route, as such question did not arise for their decision. However in MSRTC's case, while observing that intersections are not overlappings, the Supreme Court stated that an intersection cannot be said to be traversing the same line, as it cuts across it, without further examining the scope of intersection.
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, : AIR1979Kant87 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:
'According to strict geometric concepts, a point has no dimension and a line has also no breadth. However, for deciding whether there is intersection or overlapping, we should adopt a common sense approach and not a pedantic one based upon pure geometric concepts. In a village like Dasarahalli, no one would think of boarding a stage carriage at one end of that village to get down at another end of the same village. Hence any two points on the road within the limits of that village, cannot reasonably be regarded as two termini and two places on a route running through that village. Hence, the stretch of the road lying within those two points cannot reasonably fee regarded as a route or a part thereof. When two different routes pass through such a village and not beyond the limits thereof, even if the road between such limits of that village is common for both the routes, it is more reasonable to regard those two routes as intersecting at that village than to regard them as overlapping within the limits of that village. If the aerial route between Delhi and Madras and the aerial route between Bombay and Calcutta pass through Nagpur, is it reasonable to say that they overlap because the planes proceeding in both the routes, while landing at Nagpur for an intermediate halt, use the same air strip in the airport at Nagpur?'
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.
10.2 The third Decision is the Full Bench Decision of this Court in ASHRAAFULLA KHAN v. KSTAT , W.A. No. 403 of 1988 DD 21.7.1988 which exhaustively considered the matter. After referring to all the earlier Decisions including the decision of the Supreme Court in MSRTC and Adarsh Travels, the Full Bench reiterated the principles laid down by the Division Bench in KSRTC's case. The Decision of the Full Bench may be summarised as follows :
(a) A private operator cannot contend that he has a right to ply his stage carriage between two places, if the route between two places forms part of a notified route.
(b) There is however a clear distinction between 'overlapping' that is, plying a private stage carriage between two points or places lying on a notified route, and 'intersection' that is, crossing or traversing the notified route while plying a stage carriage on a non-notified route.
(c) Small portions of a notified route tailing within village/town limits are to be treated as intersections and not overlapping. In some cases, the road of a non-notified route may cut across the road of a notified route straight (if they are perpendicular to one another) and in some other cases, instead of cutting across the notified route, a private stage carriage may have to traverse over a common stretch lying within a village or town limits before again entering the road of the non-notified route lying on the other side of the notified route and such instances would be only cases of intersection and not overlapping.
10.3. The last is of the Division Bench of this Court in S. SHARFULLA v. RTA, BANGALORE, W.As. 240 & 241 of 1991 DD 29.1.1991 wherein following the Full Bench Decision in Ashrafulla's case it was held that traversing a notified route as of necessity, in the course of a journey on a non-notified route, could be regarded as 'intersection' and all other cases will amount to overlapping a notified route.
11. Thus this Court has consistently taken the view that traversing of small portions of a notified route falling within village or town limits, to continue their journey on a non-notified route, or entering a notified route for a short distance to gain access to a non-notified route, even outside town or village limits, is to be treated as intersections and not over-lapping, even after the Decisions of the Supreme Court in MSRTC and Adarsha Travels. However, in another batch of Cases (KSRTC v. RTA, KOLAR W.P.39903/1993 and connected cases), KSRTC contended that the said four Decisions of this Court in the Cases of KSRTC, KSRTC & ANNEGOWDA, ASHRAFULLA, and SHARFUDDIN are no longer good law in view of further enunciation of the principles laid down in Adarsh Travels, by the Supreme Court in Rudramani's case and in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M. SANAULLA v. KSTAT, W.A.No. 3518 of 1993 DD 5.1.1994.
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.
11.2. Hence KSRTC's contention that every case of traversing of a notified route, for howsoever short distance, except where the non-notified route diametrically cuts across a notified route amounts to overlapping of a notified route and the word 'intersect' should be literally interpreted, are liable to be rejected. In fact when an identical contention was advanced in Ashrafulla's case, the Full Bench repelled it as follows:
'Sri K. Balakrishna, learned counsel for the Corporation, while conceding that crossing a notified route constitutes an intersection and therefore cannot be regarded as prohibited, maintained that crossing, to constitute intersection must be straight and not after plying on the notified route to any extent on the same line on which monopoly stage carriage operates. We asked the learned counsel for the Corporation to state as to what would be the position if on account of traffic regulations, taking of 'U' turn is prescribed at the point of crossing and consequently the plying of private stage carriage on the notified route' for a short distance and then taking a 'U' turn and again plying on a notified route and then taking a left turn to enter the road on a non-notified route, is inevitable, the learned counsel submitted that it amounts to overlapping and such plying is impermissible in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Adarsh Travels. The meaning attributed to the word. 'Intersection' by the learned counsel, is too unrealistic and unreasonable for acceptance,'
11.3. The purpose of a Scheme creating a monopoly in favour of a State Transport undertaking to the complete or partial exclusion of private operators, is to provide an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated transport service in the public interest. So long as the route covered by a permit granted to a private operator does not overlap a notified route but merely intersects the notified route either perpendicularly or diagonally or by traversing it for a short distance to gain access to the non-notified route, such traversing cannot be treated as overlapping. While the Supreme Court has made it clear that even a slightest 'overlapping' in impermissible, the Supreme Court has held that intersecting of notified route is permissible. Exclusion of private operators from notified route cannot be literally interpreted as to mean private operators cannot touch the notified route at all, which may lead to absurd and unintended results. It is not the intention of the Scheme to make all and every non-notified routes which touches the notified route, dysfunctional.
11.4. The words 'overlapping' and 'intersection' on which so much arguments have been advanced, are not used in the Statute. Chapter VI of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 containing the special provisions relating to State Transport Undertakings and approval of Schemes (corresponding to Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) only refer to proposal and approval of Schemes providing for operation of services by State Road Transport Undertaking in a notified area or route, to the 'exclusion' of others. To explain the scope of such 'exclusion' (used in Section 68C of the 1939 Act corresponding to Section 99 of the 1988 Act) Courts have used the words 'overlapping', 'intersection', 'corridor restrictions', etc. Hence while ascertaining the meaning of the words 'overlapping' and 'intersection', it should be remembered, that they are not used in the Statute, but have been used by Courts to explain the meaning of the words 'exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons' occurring in the Statute and any interpretation of these words used by Courts, should be with reference to and in the context of the words 'exclusion of others from the notified routes.' 'Overlapping' and 'intersection' are only two convenient tools to explain the concept of 'exclusion' under an Approved Scheme and these explanatory words used by Courts should not be understood in such a strict or pedantic sense, so as to exceed the intention of the Statute itself. They should be understood in a practical manner, in the context and scope of the particular Scheme, having regard to the nature and extent of common use of the notified route, existence of traffic curbs and regulations, non availability of access to a non-notified route and other relevant factors.
12. The above discussion leads to the following conclusions in regard to overlappings and intersections:
(a) When a Scheme contemplates exclusion of others from a notified route, if the route of a private stage carriage for which permit has been applied for or granted, overlaps any part of the notified route, unless route is suitably curtailed or deviated, the applicant/grantee will not be entitled to either grant or renewal of the permit, as the case may be. Where it is not practical to curtail the over-lapping portion, the application for grant or renewal, will have to be rejected. In case of partial exclusion by the Scheme, the grant or renewal will be governed by the terms of the Scheme.
(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.
13. The following illustrations (not exhaustive) will indicate the nature of circumstances in which use of short stretches of the notified routes can be considered as intersections :
(i) When a non-notified route on which a private operator is permitted to operate, cuts across straight a notified route, admittedly such intersection does not involve any overlapping. But in the very same situation, if on account of a part of the non-notified route (immediately before the intersection) being declared as a one-way or No-entry area, the private operator is constrained to deviate from the non-notified route and enter the notified route and use a short stretch of the notified route to again enter the non-notified route, such use of a short stretch of the notified route cannot be considered as overlapping.
(ii) When a notified route and non-notified route intersect within the limit of a town/village there is no overlapping. With passage of time, the roads get congested on account of the growth of such town/village, and consequently a By-pass Road or Ring Road is laid and the Traffic Authorities instruct the private stage carriages to use such By-pass/Ring Road instead of entering the town. In view of such prohibition, the private operator who was earlier proceeding on the non-notified route which intersected the notified route within the town limits, will now have to use a longer stretch of road which may be outside the town limits, in common with the notified route. In such a case even though the common stretch may extend to a few kilometers, there will be no overlapping, but only an intersection.
(iii) Where a non-notified route enters the village/town through a road which is part of a notified route and there is no other access to the village/town from the non-notified route, then use of the notified route within the town/village limits, will only be an intersection.
(iv) Where on account of construction of medians/road dividers, or flyovers/over bridges or on account of traffic curbs or regulations, even outside village/town limits, it may become necessary for private stage carriages travelling on non-notified routes to enter and traverse the notified route for short distances or use the notified route for taking 'U' turns so as to again reach the non-notified route. Such use of the notified routes will be intersections.
14. If examined with reference to the above principles, traversing a distance of 200 Mtrs. from Metagalli to Hebbal Cross within the Mysore City limits and traversing 54 Mtrs. from Sunanda Aromatic Cross to District Border to gain access to the non-notified route cannot be held to be overlappings but have to be considered only as 'intersections. The first is within town limits. The second is so short (54 M.) that it has to be treated as an intersection, as there is no other access to the non-notified route. Hence the decision of the Tribunal in so far as alternative route from Mysore to Pump House has to be accepted as it does not violate any Scheme.
15. The position is some what different in regard to traversing of the sections Paschimavahini - Srirangapatna - Kirangur Cross and Kirangur Cross to Lokapavani Bridge which are part of notified routes under Mysore Shimoga Scheme and Mysore Bangalore Scheme. The question, it is stated, arises in regard to the permits which are the subject matter of W.P.26187 to 26189/1992. The Tribunal held the Stretch between Paschimavahani to Srirangapatna and Srirangapatna to Kirangur Cross, fall within the town limits of Srirangapatna and therefore traversing the same does not amount to overlapping. In regard to the stretch between Kirangur Cross to Lokapavani Bridge, the Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in N.R. REVANNA v. RTO, TUMKUR, (URA 754/86 disposed of on 25.10.1990) wherein the Tribunal had held that the said stretch measuring 2775 ft. is within the village limits of Kirangur and thus traversing the same does not amount to overlapping.
15.1. The question whether the portion between Paschimavahini to Srirangapatna was an intersection, arose for consideration by this Court in several Cases. It is sufficient to refer to two of them. The first is KSRTC v. KSTAT, W.P.No. 8154 of 1978 DD 11.8.1978 affirmed by Order dated 24.1.1979 in W.A. 159/1979. The Second is KSRTC v. KSTAT, W.P.No. 7718 & 9366 of 1 976 DD 27.2.1980 affirmed by Order dated 7.11.1985 in W.As. 789 & 828/1980. This Court held that the said portion lies within the Municipal limits of Srirangapatna and should be considered as an 'intersection'. In regard to other two stretches, that is, Srirangapatna to Kirangur Cross, (which is stated to fall within the town limits of Srirangapatna) and Kirangur Cross to Lokapavani Bridge, (which is stated to fall within the village limits of Kirangur) there is no Decision of this Court.
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.
15.3. Tribunal has not considered these contentions of KSRTC while reaching the conclusion that the two sections Srirangapatna-Kirangur Cross and Kirangur Cross-Lokapavani Bridge were within the town limits of Srirangapatna and village limits of Kirangur respectively. Nor did the Tribunal have the benefit of any Route Survey Report or personal inspection. Hence in regard to the said two sections, the matter requires to be remitted back. As the matter requires consideration of additional material, it is remitted to the RTA for fresh consideration.
15.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners who are operating on the said stretches, contended that they are saved operators under the Mysore Shimoga Scheme and/or Mysore Bangalore Scheme and therefore, they will not be affected even if it is held that the said three stretches together constitute overlapping. The learned Counsel for KSRTC contended that they are not saved operators. This is also a matter that will have to be considered by the RTA before whom, parties can produce evidence in support of their contentions.
RE : W.P. 28995-28997/1995:
16. The Appeals filed by the petitioners in these Petitions (who are third respondent in W.P.26187, 26188 & 26189/1992) before the Tribunal challenging the rejection of their applications for renewal were rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 24.6.1995 as not maintainable relying on the Decision in SECRETARY, QUILON DISTRICT MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY v. RTA, : AIR1995SC82 wherein the Supreme Court held that permits granted under the repealed Act (1939 Act) continued to operate till expiry of their period, that right of renewal of permit under the old Act stood repealed and on the expiry of the period of such permits, a fresh application has to be made for grant of permits under the 1988 Act.
16.1. The petitioners contend that fresh permits had been granted to them under Section 80(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and that the Decision of the Supreme Court in Quilon case 12. : AIR1995SC82 will not apply to a case where renewal had been granted under Section 80(4). They also contend that their Cases are covered by the earlier Decision of the Supreme Court in GURUCHARAN SINGH v. YASHWANT SINGH, : AIR1992SC180 . On the other hand, KSRTC contends that what is contemplated under Section 80(4) was only replacement of a permit and not renewal of a permit and therefore Section 80(4) was only replacement of a permit and not renewal of a permit and therefore Section 80(4) has no relevance. It is also stated that after rejection of the appeals by the Tribunal, the petitioners have made applications for fresh permit for the same routes and the said applications are pending before the RTA, Mysore.
17. It is not necessary to consider the question whether applications of petitioners for renewal are maintainable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The only apprehension of the petitioners is that if their applications for renewal are not accepted and if they are treated as applications for grant of fresh permit, they may lose their status as 'saved operators' under the respective Approved Schemes. There is no basis for such apprehension. It is always open to the petitioners to contend that they made applications for fresh grant under the 1988 Act, as applications for renewal in respect of permits granted under 1939 Act are held to be not maintainable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Supreme Court in Quilon case and that even though what may be granted are fresh permits under the 1988 Act instead of renewal of the permits granted under the 1939 Act, for the purpose of having the benefit of saved operators under the Approved Schemes, they continue to be existing operators as on the date of the Scheme who are saved under the Scheme. In view of this, it will make no difference, whether their applications for grant are for fresh permits or for renewal as long as they make it clear that they have made applications for fresh permit instead of for renewal, in view of the directions of the Tribunal and the Decision of the Supreme Court in Quilon case. In view of the above, as the petitioners have already filed applications for fresh grant to the RTA, it is not necessary to interfere with the order of the Tribunal dated 24.6.1995 in Appeal Nos. 995, 997 and 1000/1995. Petitioners are therefore permitted to pursue their applications before RTA for grant of fresh permits in the light of the above observations.
18. In view of the above, Petitions are disposed of as follows:
(i) The order dated 2.4.1992 of the Tribunal (Annexure-A) in Appeal Nos. 268/1990 and connected cases is upheld in regard to the direction relating to alternative route between Mysore to KRS via District Border and Pump House,
(ii) The order dated 2.4.1992 of the Tribunal (Annexure-A) in so far as it holds that the portions of the Routes between Paschimavahini to Srirangapatna and Srirangapatna to Kirangur Cross and Kirangur Cross to Lokapavani Bridge, are intersections, is set aside.
(iii) The RTA, Mysore shall examine and decide the matter whether traversing of all or any of the said three stretches amount to overlapping or intersections, after route survey and hearing the parties and taking evidence as to whether the said three stretches fall within town/village limits and taking note of the fact that the stretch between Paschimavahini to Srirangapatna has already been held to be an intersection by this Court in several Cases; the matter shall be decided in accordance with law and the observations above. The permit holders and the KSRTC will be entitled to produce additional material in that behalf.
(iv) W.P.28995 to 28997/1995 are dismissed subject to the observations in para 17 above.