Notified route exclusivity under motor vehicle schemes bars private operators from overlapping sectors unless the scheme permits it.

An approved scheme under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act operates as a self-contained code for nationalised road transport and controls permits on the notified route or portion thereof. A private stage carriage operator cannot rely on corridor restrictions, or on the fact that no passengers are picked up or set down, to ply over a notified common sector unless the scheme expressly permits such operation. Earlier authority supporting exclusion over common sectors was approved, while the contrary view was confined and disapproved. The scheme may validly exclude private operators from the notified area or route, wholly or partially, according to its terms.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a private stage carriage operator whose route overlaps a notified route can continue to ply over the overlapping sector by relying on corridor restrictions and by not picking up or setting down passengers there; (ii) whether an approved scheme under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act excludes private operators from any part of a notified route, and how the conflicting earlier decisions on overlapping routes are to be treated.

Issue (i): Whether a private stage carriage operator whose route overlaps a notified route can continue to ply over the overlapping sector by relying on corridor restrictions and by not picking up or setting down passengers there.

Analysis: Chapter IV-A was construed as a self-contained code for nationalised road transport services. Once a scheme is published and approved in relation to any area, route, or portion thereof, the State Transport Undertaking's exclusive right operates according to the terms of the scheme. A private operator cannot claim a right to pass over the notified common sector merely because he does not load or unload passengers there, since the route includes the actual highway traversed and not merely the terminus-to-terminus abstraction. Corridor restrictions were treated as incapable of overriding a scheme that completely prohibits private operation on the notified part of the route.

Conclusion: The contention based on corridor restrictions failed, and private operators were held disentitled to ply over the notified overlapping sector unless the scheme itself permitted it.

Issue (ii): Whether an approved scheme under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act excludes private operators from any part of a notified route, and how the conflicting earlier decisions on overlapping routes are to be treated.

Analysis: The Court held that the statutory scheme, especially the overriding effect of Chapter IV-A and the prohibition on permits inconsistent with an approved scheme, shows a legislative intention to exclude private operators from the notified area or route, wholly or partially, as the scheme provides. Earlier authority recognising exclusion over common sectors was approved, while the contrary view was confined and disapproved. The Court emphasised that the scheme itself must be read as controlling the grant and renewal of permits, and that complete exclusion on a notified route or part of it is valid when clearly provided in the scheme.

Conclusion: The earlier contrary view was not accepted as laying down the governing rule; the appeals failed because the schemes prohibited private operation on the notified routes or portions thereof.

Final Conclusion: The statutory schemes validly excluded the appellants from operating on the notified common sectors, and the civil appeals and special leave petitions were dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a scheme under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act notifies a route or portion thereof for exclusive or partial operation by the State Transport Undertaking, private operators cannot ply over the notified portion merely on the basis of overlapping permits or corridor restrictions unless the scheme itself expressly allows such operation.

---