PETITIONER:
K. VENKAMMA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/04/1977
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
SINGH, JASWANT
CITATION:
1977 AIR 1170 1977 SCR (3) 562
1977 SCC (3) 36
ACT
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939--Whether a route whose termini
lie within the same state but which traverses in its course
one or more other states be designated as "inter state"
route--"Inter State Route"--Meaning of--Whether the proposed
Nationalisation scheme of Nellore--Ramapuram route passing
over a short distance of 8 K.M. through Tamil Nadu invalid
for want of approval of the Central Government under s.
68-D(3)--Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Ss. 228(A), 63(1)(4), 68-
D(3) and S. 20 of the Road Transport Corporations (Central
Act) Act--Scope of.
HEADNOTE
The Nellore-Ramapuram route passing over a short dis-
tance of 8 K.m. through Tamil Nadu was proposed to be natio-
nalised by the Andhra, Pradesh Government. The appellant an
existing private operator on the route challenged the scheme
on the ground that the route being an inter-state route,
noncompliance with S. 68-D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1939 aborted the Nationalisation. The High Court held that
the decisive test turned on whether both the termini fall
within the same state and it did in this case and so on
question of inter-state route arose. On appeal by Certifi-
cate the court
HELD: (1) (a) The route Nellore-Ramapuram is an inter-
state route; (b) the Scheme of Nationalisation is operative
even in the absence of the previous approval of the Central
Government so far as the portions which fall within Andhra
Pradesh are concerned and (c) the nationalisation cannot
become effective over the strip in Tamil Nadu and ,private
operators may still be permitted to ply their services over
that strip by the concerned authority within Tamil Nadu
State, but (d) The Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corpora-
tion may ply its buses over the Tamil Nadu enclave even
without counter signature, exemption having been granted in
that behalf by the 2nd proviso to S. 63(1 ) of the Motor
Vehicles Act. [567H, 568 A-B]
(2) The definition of ’Route’ in S. 2(28A) of the Act is
not a notional line "as the crow flies" but the actual
highway as a motor vehicle traverses from one terminus to
another. A route is transformed into an inter-state one, if
the highway it covers passes through more than one state.
An inter-state route may be of the categories either con-
necting two states or traversing two or more states. [564
D-E]
(3) Ordinarily--not invariably--the two termini test is
a, working solution and not an inflexible formation. The
termini test may lead to strange results, fatal to
federal ideas. A route which originates in Srinagar, runs
down South to Kanyakumari and rises North to end again in
Kashmir, completing a Bharat Darshan, cannot sensibly be
called an interstate one, without doing violence to lan-
guage, geography and federalism. And in the absence of a
statutory definition of inter-state route non-violence to
English and conformance to commonsense dictate the adoption
of the conventional meaning that if a route traverses more
than one state it is inter-state. [564 B-C, D]
(4) Undoubtedly, where the termini fall in different
states the route is inter-state. But that does not ex-
clude other categories of inter-state route such as where it
crosses a state other than the originating state although
gets back into it later. If the territory of more than one
state is covered even if both the termini eventually fall
within the same state, the route is inter not intra-
state. [564H, 565A]
563
Kazan Singh [1974] 2 S.C.R. 562; Ahwathanarayan v. State
[1966] 1 SCR 87 pp. 100-101. explained.
(5) If the whole of the route lies within a single state
it is intra state and not inter-state, even though the road
over which the route lies runs beyond the borders of that
single state as national highways do. It is elementary that
there can be inter-state routes which run into or through
more than one state. A part of that long route may itself
be a separate route and may fall wholly within a single
state in which case the former may be inter-state while the
latter will be an intra-state route. [565G-H, 566A]
(6) There can be no doubt that the scheme notified by
one State will, even in the case of an inter-state route,
operate to the extent it lies within that State. Its
extra-territorial effect depends on securing of prior Cen-
tral Government approval under the proviso to Section
680(3). However, the permit granted in one state may still
be valid in. another state, if the condition specified in
the 2nd proviso to section 63(1) is fulfilled. The portion
of the route, in the instant case, falling outside Andhra
Pradesh (both termini being within that state) is admittedly
less than 16 k.m. and so no question of countersignature by
the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport
Authority of Tamil Nadu arises. The portion of the inter-
state route which fell within Andhra Pradesh stand nationa-
lised and consequently exclude private operators. But that
strip of the inter-state route which falls within Tamil Nadu
cannot be taken to have been nationalised to the exclusion
of private operators although the Andhra Pradesh State
Transport Buses could ply on that strip also in view of the
2nd proviso to S. 63(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. [567 A-B,
E-F]
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 796 of
1977.
V. Ramana Reddy and M.L. Varma for the Appellant.
P.P. Rao and G.N. Rao for Respondent 1--3.
P. Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate General and A.P.B. Par-
thasarathi for Respondent No. 4.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KIRSHANA IYER, J.---Nationalisation of road transport
service is of strategic significance to the country’s devel-
opment and new legal issues arise as private operators,
threatened with elimination, battle against such schemes.
One such obstacle to the proposed nationalisation of the
route Nellore-Ramapuram by the Andhra Pradesh Government is
the subject matter of this appeal by certificate, the High
Court having considered it substantial and novel enough to
qualify under Article 133 of the Constitution. The point
raised is short, the order under appeal brief, but the
problem is thorny, with extra-territorial overtones and
anomies in application. Can a route, whose termini lie
within .the same State but which traverses in its course one
or more other States, be designated as inter-state route ?
If yes, then the exercise in nationalisation proposed by the
respondent State cannot materialise into an ’approved
scheme’ unless as desiderated by the proviso to Section
68D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter re-
ferred to as ’M. V. Act’), the previous approval of the
Central Government is secured. Here, admittedly, no such
approval has been obtained and the notified route does pass
over a short distance of about
564
8 km. through Tamil Nadu. The route Nellore-Ramapuram was,
according to counsel for the existing private operator, an
inter-state route and non-compliance with Section 68D(3) of
M.V. Act aborted the nationalisation. The counter-submis-
sion by the State which appealed to the. High Court was that
the decisive test turned on whether both the termini fell
within the same State and it did in this case, and so no
question of inter-state route arose.
At the first flush, an inter-state route may be of two
categories, either connecting two states or traversing two
or more states. Black’s Legal Dictionary considers inter-
state to mean ’Between two or more states; between places or
persons in different states; concerning or affecting two or
more states politically or territorially. And that accords
with commonsense. The ’termini test’ as presented by coun-
sel for the State, may lead to strange results, fatal to
federal ideas. A route which originates in Srinagar, runs
down South to Kanya Kumari and rises North to end again in
Kashmir, completing a Bharat darshan, cannot sensibly be
called an intrastate one, without doing gross violence to
language, geography and federalism. And in the absence of a
statutory definition of inter-state route, non-violence to
English and conformance to commensense dictate the adoption
of the conventional meaning that if a route traverses more
than one state it is inter-state.
The statutory sensitivity to one State permitting stage
carriages from within its territory into another is reflect-
ed in Section 63(1) and (4). 68D(3) proviso and Section 20
of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. We are skirt-
ing the constitutional question of extraterritorial powers
but are confining ourselves to a mere interpretation of the
provisions of the Act. ’Route’ is defined in Section 2(28A)
to mean a line of travel which specifies the highway which
may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and
another. The point is that it is not a notional line ’as
the crow flies’ but the actual ’highway as a motor vehicle
travels from one terminus to another. The inference is
inevitable that a route is transformed into an interstate
one, if the highway it covers passes through more than one
State.
This easy breakthrough is seemingly obstructed by two
rulings of this Court relied on by counsel for the State,
although the High Court while granting the certificate, felt
that these decisions did not really cover the case on hand.
Khazan Singh(1) dealt with a case where the termini of
the concerned routes were located in different states and
so, by any test, were inter-state routes. There, in passing
and not as ratio of the case, an observation fell from the
Court:
"An inter-state route is one of which
one of the termini falls in one State and the
other in another State."
Undoubtedly, where the termini fall in different states the
route is inter-state. But that does not exclude other
categories of inter-state routes such as where it crosses a
State other than the originating State
(1) [1974] (2)S.C.R. 562
565
although gets back into it later. If the territory of more
than one State is covered, even if both the termini eventu-
ally fail within the same state, the route is inter, not
intra-state. Ordinarily--not invariably-the ’two termini’
test is a working solution, not an inflexible formula.
Aswathanarayan v. State (1) had something to say on inter-
state route:
"An inter-State route is one in ’which
one of the termini is in one State and the
other in another State. In the present case
both the termini are in one State. So it does
not deal with inter-State routes at all. It
is urged that part of the, scheme covers roads
which continue beyond the State and connect
various points in the State of Mysore with
other States. Even if that is so that does
not make the scheme one connected with inter-
State,routes, for a road is different from a
route. For example, the Grand Trunk Road runs
from Calcutta to Amritsar and passes through
many States. But any portion of it within a
State or even within a District or a sub-
division can be a route for purposes of stage
carriages or goods vehicles. That would not
make such a route a part of an inter-State
route even though it lies on a road which
runs through many States. The criterion is
to see whether the two termini of the route
are in the same state or not. If they are in
the same State, the route is not an interState
route and the proviso to S. 68-D(3) would not
be applicable. The termini in the present
case being within the State of Mysore, the
scheme does not deal with inter-State routes
at all, and the contention on this head must
be rejectcd." (emphasis supplied).
The facts and discussion bear out abundantly that there
is nothing in the ruling to suggest that even if a route
traverses territory of another State it is none-the-less an
intra-State route if the points of beginning and ending fall
within one State. It is a fallacy so to construe that
decision. What is repelled in that case is the contention
that if a high-way run through many States, any portion of
that high-way which is picked out for running a bus service
as a route, should also be deemed to be inter-state for the
only reason that such a route (though its entire length
falls within a single State) overlaps a road which crosses
many States. The very definition of route in Section
2(28-A) is sufficient to extinguish that argument and this
Court rightly, if we may so with respect, rejected it. We
cannot confuse between road and route. If the whole of the
route lies within a single State it is intra-state and not
inter-state, even though the road over which the route lies
runs beyond the borders of that single State as national
highways do.
In Abdul Khader Saheb(2) a totally untenable submission
was put forward and unhesitatingly turned down that if the
nationalised route fell within a single State it should
nevertheless be regarded as interState route for some mysti-
cal reason, viz., that it overlaps a longer route which is
admittedly an inter-State route. It is elementary that
(1) [1955] (I) S.C.R. 87 at pp. 100-1Ol. (2) [1973] 2
S.C.R. 925.
566
there can be inter-state routes which run into or through
more than one State. A part of that long route may itself
be a separate route and may fall wholly within a single
State in which case the former may be inter-state while the
latter will be an intra-state route. In Abdulkhader’s
(1) case the Court observed:
".. 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.
...... 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 this
that even if Bellary-Chintakunta route which
is shown as item 34 in 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 Amrit-
sar and passes through many Sates 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 part of an inter-State
route even though it lies on the road which
runs through many States.
The above argument can possibly have no
validity so far as the present case is con-
cerned. The scheme which was under considera-
tion in the decision relied upon was in re-
spect of an intra-state route. It appears to
have been argued that as the scheme was con-
cerned with an inter-state route the approval
of the Central Government was necessary as
required under the proviso to Section 63D(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 applica-
bility of the proviso to s. 68D(3). In the
present case there is no scheme of national-
isation 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 s. 68D."
No further comment is necessary.
We are inclined to the view that the route, passing, as
it does through part of Tamil Nadu, is inter-state’ What
is the effect of this finding over the scheme of nationali-
sation ? Wholly invalidatory ? or else, what ? The proviso
to Section 68D(3) i.e. Central Government approval has not
been complied with and so qua inter-state route the nation-
alisation does not become effective. Even so, two factors
can together salvage this nationalisation scheme.
(1) [1973] (2) SCR 925.
567
There can be no doubt that the scheme notified by one
State will, even in the case of an inter-state route, oper-
ate to the extent it lies within that State. Its extra-
territorial effect depends on securing of prior Central
approval under the proviso to Section 68D(3). That being
absent, the permit granted in one State may still be valid
in another State if the condition specified in the 2nd
proviso to Section 63(1) is fulfilled, We may as well ex-
tract Section 63 (1 ) to that extent relevant.
"63. Validation of permits for use outside
region in which granted--(1) Except as may be
otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the
Regional Transport Authority of any one region
shall not be valid in any other region, unless
the permit has been counter-signed by the
Regional Transport Authority of that other
region and a permit granted in any one State
shall not be valid in any other State unless
countersigned by the State Transport Authority
of that other State or by the Regional Trans-
port Authority concerned:
x x x
..... Provided further that where both the
starting point and the terminal point of a
route are situate within the same State, but
part of such route lies in any other State and
the length of such part does not exceed six-
teen kilometres, the permit shall be valid in
other State in respect of that part of the
route which is in that other State notwith-
standing that such permit has not been coun-
ter-signed by the State Transport Authority or
the Regional Transport Authority of that other
State."
The portion of the route falling outside Andhra Pradesh
(both termini being within that State) is admittedly less
than 16 kin. and so no question of counter-signature by the
State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authori-
ty of Tamil Nadu State arises. The conclusion follows that
the portions of the inter-state route which fall within
Andhra Pradesh stand nationalised, and consequently excludes
private operators. But that strip of the inter-state route
which falls within Tamil Nadu cannot be taken to have been
nationalised to the exclusion of private operators although
the Andhra Pradesh State Transport buses could ply on that
strip also in view of the 2nd proviso to Section 63 (1) of
the M.V. Act.
We may point out that section 20 of the Road Transport
Corporations Act (a Central Act) provides for extension of
the operation of the road transport service of a corporation
of one State to areas within another State. We are not
directly concerned with such a scheme as is contemplated by
that provision since passage over a neighbouring State if
the length of such intersection does not exceed 16 km. is
saved by the 2nd proviso to Section 63(1) of the M.V. Act.
We, therefore, reach the conclusion that (a) the route
Nellore-Ramapuram is an interstate route; (b) the scheme of
nationalisation is operative even in the absence of the
previous approval of the Central Government, so
568
far as the portions which fall within Andhra Pradesh are
concerned; and (c) the nationalisation cannot become effec-
tive over the tiny strip in Tamil Nadu and private operators
may still be permitted to ply their services over that strip
by the concerned authority within Tamil Nadu State; but (d)
the Andhra Pradesh Sate Transport Corporation may ply its
buses over the Tamil Nadu enclave even without counter-
signature exemption having been granted in that behalf by
the 2nd proviso to Section 63(1) of the M.V. Act. In this
view, the appeal must substantially fail except to the
extent of the little modification we have indicated, which
does not profit the appellant. In the circumstances, while
dismissing the appeal, we direct the parties to suffer their
costs throughout.
S.R. Appeal dismissed.
569