Total-exclusion transport scheme bars private permits on any part of a notified route; short town stretches are overlapping, not intersections.

Under an approved total-exclusion scheme on a notified route, a private operator cannot be permitted to ply on any part of that route merely because the stretch is short or lies within town or village limits. The scheme, once approved and published, operates as law and excludes private operation on the notified route or any part of it unless the scheme itself allows it. A true intersection exists only where a non-notified route cuts across the notified route for onward travel; use of the same line of travel, even for a short stretch, amounts to overlapping. The High Court's contrary view was held erroneous and unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under an approved scheme framed for total exclusion of private operators on a notified route under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, a small stretch of road falling within the limits of a town or village is to be treated as an intersection or as overlapping, and whether a permit can be granted on such stretch.

Analysis: Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 permits a State Transport Undertaking to frame a scheme for an area, route or portion thereof, and once the scheme is approved and published it becomes final and operates as law. Where the scheme is one of total exclusion, the statutory consequence is that no private operator can be allowed to ply on the notified route or any part of it except as permitted by the scheme itself. The distinction between intersection and overlapping must therefore be understood in the context of the scheme and its object, not by isolated dictionary meanings. An intersection exists only where a non-notified route cuts across a notified route for onward journey, whereas traversing the same line of travel on a notified route, even for a short distance within municipal or village limits, is overlapping.

Conclusion: The small portions within town or village limits on the notified route could not be treated as mere intersections, and a private permit could not be granted on those portions contrary to the approved total-exclusion scheme. The view taken by the High Court was erroneous and unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Under an approved total-exclusion scheme, a private operator cannot be granted a permit to ply on any part of a notified route merely because the covered stretch is short or lies within town or village limits; only a route that merely cuts across the notified route for onward movement may be treated as an intersection.

---