R RAGHURAM Vs. P JAYARAMA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for review of the decision dated 24th January, 1989 rendered in Civil Appeal No. 4125 of 1988. The question involved in this case relates to the right of a private operator to ply a stage carriage on a notified route under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') or any part thereof. Although the case proceeded on the basis that there was only a draft scheme published under S. 68C of the Act it now transpires that there was an approved scheme in respect of major portion of the route in question. It is not disputed that between Chittoor and Kannikapuram the portion of the route Chittoor lruvaram Cross Kannikapurarn is a notified portion of the route. Under the scheme the holders of stage carriage permits operating on portions of the proposed route were not to be affected. Even while the draft scheme was pending the appellant P. Jayarama Naidu who was an existing permit holder applied for a variation of his permit as he desired an increase in the number of trips operated by him on a portion of the notified route. The State Transport Authority allowed an Increase in the number of trips but. on appeal the State Transport Appellate Tribunal reversed the order and refused the increase, A Writ petition was filed in the High Court and the same was dismissed on the ground that no variation in the conditions of the existing permit could be allowed in view of the draft scheme but this Court by its judgment dated January 24, 1989 allowed the appeal on the grounds that the draft scheme had not yet been finalised and then there could be no objection to the variation of the permit until there was an approved scheme.

(2.) A Review Petition was filed bringing to the notice of the Court that there was an approved scheme already and the appellant could not be permitted to operate on the portion of the notified route between Chittoor Kannikapuram.

(3.) In M/s. Adarsh Travels Bus Service v. State of U.P., AIR 1986 SC 319 a Constitution Bench of this Court has held that where a route is nationalised under Chapter IVA of the Act, a private operator with a permit to ply a stage permit over another route but which has a common overlapping sector with the nationalised route, cannot ply his vehicle over that part of the overlapping common sector, even with corridor restriction, such as that he would not be able to pick up or drop passengers on the overlapping part of the route unless such an exemption had bean allowed in the scheme itself. Even when the scheme provides that an existing operater is exempted from the operation of the scheme it only means that he can continue to operate his services with the existing number of trips on the date on which the scheme is published and it does authorise him to apply for a variation of his permit so that he can increase the number of trips on the overlapping portion of the notified route thus increasing the burden of private operation of vehicles on the notified route in questin. The variation authorising increasing the number of trips in fact amounts to granting A fresh permit to run one more stage carriage service doing one round trip on the notified route and that would be in violation of the scheme itself because the scheme protects only the number of trips which were being operated at the time of its publication.