Case: S. Abdul Khader Saheb Vs. The Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal,Bangalore &amp; Ors

that no decision was given in Thippeswamys case that the Bellary scheme provides for a total exclusion of all operators on the nationalised routes. He has also sought to distinguish that case by pointing out that the controversy there was confined to the question whether the appellant was an existing permit holder on the inter-State route. It has further been stated that in the present case no permit has so far been issued to the State Corporation because it has failed to comply with certain provisions and in particular with the requirement of Section 20 of the Road Transport Corporations Act 1950. It may be that the facts are somewhat different here. The view which the High Court in the present case took was that after the Bellary Scheme had come into force the operators other than the State Transport Undertaking were totally excluded. In Thippeswamys case, AIR 1972 SC 1674 (supra) also it is clear from the portion already extracted from the judgment of this Court that according to the scheme all operators excepting those mentioned in the scheme are excluded from the nationalised routes. The two exceptions which have been made are only with regard to the inter-district operators and the existing permit holders on inter-State routes. Mr. Setalvad does not claim that the appellant falls within either of these categories. It is, therefore, not possible to accede to his contention that because the scheme merely provides for partial exclusion it is open to the authorities concerned to issue a permit for the route overlapping the inter-State route. 7. The next point on which a great deal of emphasis has been laid on behalf of the appellant is that an inter-State route comes into existence by virtue of an agreement between the States through which the route passes. The main provisions in that respect are to be found in Section 63 of the Act. Any scheme of nationalisation of a route by a State, as approved under Section 68-D, cannot override the inter-State agreements in respect of the inter-State routes. This Court has in T. N. Raghunatha Reddy v. Mysore State Transport Authority, (1970) 3 SCR 780 = (AIR 1971 SC 1662 ) answered this question in the negative. It has been held that the inter-State agreement is not law and to hold that an inter-State agreement overrides Chapter IV-A would be to completely disregard the provisions of Section 68-B of the Act. In other words a scheme of nationalisation approved under Section 68-D would prevail over in inter-State agreement in respect of an inter-State route. 8. Sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act has also been relied upon by Mr. Setalvad. According to that provision the scheme as approved or modified shall be published in the official gazette and the same shall thereupon become final. The proviso, however, says that no such scheme which relates to any inter-State route shall be deemed to be an approved scheme unless it has been published in the official gazette with the previous approval of the Central Government. No scheme in the present case has been approved under the proviso relating to the inter-State route in question. We are unable to see how the proviso to Section 68-D (3) can be of any avail to the appellant. The aforesaid provision becomes material only when a scheme covers an inter-State route. The Bellary scheme provides for nationalisation of an Intra-State route and not an inter-State route and the aforesaid provision can have no applicability. 9. Although respondent No. 7 has not appealed, counsel appearing for him has called attention to the observations of this Court in B. H. Aswathanarayan Singh v. State of Mysore, (1966) 1 SCR 87 = (AIR 1965 SC 1848 ) that an inter-State route is one in which one of the termini is in one State and the other in another State. Where both the termini are in one State the question of an inter-State route does not arise. If part of the scheme covers routes which continue beyond the State and connect various points in the State of Mysore with those in the other State it does not make the scheme one connected with inter-State route. It is sought to be argued from his that even if Bellary-Chintakunta route which is shown as item 34 in the Bellary Scheme has been nationalised it does not make the scheme one connected with inter-State route. Stress has been laid on the example given that the Grand Trunk Road runs from Calcutta to Amritsar and passes through many States and any portion of it within a State can be a route for purposes of stage carriage but that would not make such a route a part of an inter-State route even though it lies on the road which runs through many States. 10. The above argument can possibly have no validity so far as the present case is concerned. The scheme which was under consideration in the decision relied upon was in respect of an intra-State route. It appears to have been argued that as the scheme was concerned with an inter-State route the approval of the Central Government was necessary as required under the proviso to Section 68-D (3) of the Act. This Court held that since the termini were within the State of Mysore the scheme did not deal with an inter-State route at all and no question arose of the applicability of the proviso to Section 68-D (3).In the present case there is no scheme of nationalisation relating to the inter-State route from Bellary to Manthralaya. The Bellary Scheme is confined to the intra-State routes, one of those being the Bellary-Chintakunta route. It may be that that portion overlaps the inter-State route from Bellary to Manthralaya but so long as it is an intra-State route it could be nationalised by the State of Mysore under the provisions of Section 68-D. That having been done the decision in Thippeswamys case, AIR 1972 SC 1674 will appositely apply.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]8. Sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act has also been relied upon by Mr. Setalvad. According to that provision the scheme as approved or modified shall be published in the official gazette and the same shall thereupon become final. The proviso, however, says that no such scheme which relates to any inter-State route shall be deemed to be an approved scheme unless it has been published in the official gazette with the previous approval of the Central Government. No scheme in the present case has been approved under the proviso relating to the inter-State route in question. We are unable to see how the proviso to Section 68-D (3) can be of any avail to the appellant. The aforesaid provision becomes material only when a scheme covers an inter-State route. The Bellary scheme provides for nationalisation of an Intra-State route and not an inter-State route and the aforesaid provision can have no applicability9. Although respondent No. 7 has not appealed, counsel appearing for him has called attention to the observations of this Court in B. H. Aswathanarayan Singh v. State of Mysore, (1966) 1 SCR 87  = (AIR 1965 SC 1848 ) that an inter-State route is one in which one of the termini is in one State and the other in another State. Where both the termini are in one State the question of an inter-State route does not arise. If part of the scheme covers routes which continue beyond the State and connect various points in the State of Mysore with those in the other State it does not make the scheme one connected with inter-State route. It is sought to be argued from his that even if Bellary-Chintakunta route which is shown as item 34 in the Bellary Scheme has been nationalised it does not make the scheme one connected with inter-State route. Stress has been laid on the example given that the Grand Trunk Road runs from Calcutta to Amritsar and passes through many States and any portion of it within a State can be a route for purposes of stage carriage but that would not make such a route a part of an inter-State route even though it lies on the road which runs through many States10. The above argument can possibly have no validity so far as the present case is concerned. The scheme which was under consideration in the decision relied upon was in respect of an intra-State route. It appears to have been argued that as the scheme was concerned with an inter-State route the approval of the Central Government was necessary as required under the proviso to Section 68-D (3) of the Act. This Court held that since the termini were within the State of Mysore the scheme did not deal with an inter-State route at all and no question arose of the applicability of the proviso to Section 68-D (3).In the present case there is no scheme of nationalisation relating to the inter-State route from Bellary to Manthralaya. The Bellary Scheme is confined to the intra-State routes, one of those being the Bellary-Chintakunta route. It may be that that portion overlaps the inter-State route from Bellary to Manthralaya but so long as it is an intra-State route it could be nationalised by the State of Mysore under the provisions of Section 68-D. That having been done the decision in Thippeswamys case, AIR 1972 SC 1674  will appositely apply.