# K VENKAMMA v. THE GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS

- **Citation:** [1977] 3 S.C.R. 562
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1977-04-14
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 796 of 1977
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/k-venkamma-v-the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-7203
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
562
K VENKAMMA
v.
THE GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
April 14, 1977
[\I. R. KRISHNA !YER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.l
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Whether a route who.'ie tennirii lie wilhi11
the
sanze state but lrhich traverses in its course one or more other states be designated as "inter state"
route-"[nter State Route"-Meaning of-Whether tlie
proposed Nationalisation sc!te1ne of Nellore-Ra1napuram route passing over
a short distance of 8 K.M. through Tamil Nadu invalid for want of approval
of the Central Govern1nent under s. 68-D(3)-Motor l"ehiCles Act, 1939 Ss. 2
28(A), 63(1)(4), 68-D(3) and S. 20 of the Road Transport Corpvrntiom
(Central Act) Act-Scope of.
The Nellore-Ramapuram route passing over a short distance of 8 .K.111.
through Tan1il Nadu was proposed to be nationalised by the Andhrai Pradesh
Governntent. The appellant an existing private operator on the route challenged
the scheme on the ground that the route being an inter-state route, noncompliance wilh S. 68-D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 aborted the
Nationalisa·tion. The High Court held that the decisive test turned on \vhether
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 certificate the court
HELD : (l) (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 concerried authority within
Tamil Nadu State, but (d) The Andhra Pradesh State 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 S. 63 ( 1 )
of the Motor Vehicles Act.
[567H, 568 A-Bl
(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 traYer~es
from one ternlinus to ainother.
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 l;ie of the categories either connecting two states or traversing t\vo
or more states. [564 D-E]
(3) Ordinarily-not invariably-the two termini test is ai working solution
and not an inflexible formation.
The terinini 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, \vithout doing violence to language, geography and federalism.
And in the absence
of a str.-~utory definition of inter-state route non-violence to English and conformanr:e to commonsense dictate the adoption of the
conventional n1eaning
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 exclude 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 stnte, the route is inter
not intra-state.
[564H, 565Al
•
j
K. VENKAMMA v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Krishna Iyer, J.)
563
Kazan Singh [1974) 2 S.C.R. 562; Aswatha11arayan v. State i 19661 1 SCR
87 op. 100-101. explained.
A
(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 lon

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
562
K VENKAMMA
v.
THE GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
April 14, 1977
[\I. R. KRISHNA !YER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.l
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Whether a route who.'ie tennirii lie wilhi11
the
sanze state but lrhich traverses in its course one or more other states be designated as "inter state"
route-"[nter State Route"-Meaning of-Whether tlie
proposed Nationalisation sc!te1ne of Nellore-Ra1napuram route passing over
a short distance of 8 K.M. through Tamil Nadu invalid for want of approval
of the Central Govern1nent under s. 68-D(3)-Motor l"ehiCles Act, 1939 Ss. 2
28(A), 63(1)(4), 68-D(3) and S. 20 of the Road Transport Corpvrntiom
(Central Act) Act-Scope of.
The Nellore-Ramapuram route passing over a short distance of 8 .K.111.
through Tan1il Nadu was proposed to be nationalised by the Andhrai Pradesh
Governntent. The appellant an existing private operator on the route challenged
the scheme on the ground that the route being an inter-state route, noncompliance wilh S. 68-D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 aborted the
Nationalisa·tion. The High Court held that the decisive test turned on \vhether
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 certificate the court
HELD : (l) (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 concerried authority within
Tamil Nadu State, but (d) The Andhra Pradesh State 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 S. 63 ( 1 )
of the Motor Vehicles Act.
[567H, 568 A-Bl
(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 traYer~es
from one ternlinus to ainother.
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 l;ie of the categories either connecting two states or traversing t\vo
or more states. [564 D-E]
(3) Ordinarily-not invariably-the two termini test is ai working solution
and not an inflexible formation.
The terinini 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, \vithout doing violence to language, geography and federalism.
And in the absence
of a str.-~utory definition of inter-state route non-violence to English and conformanr:e to commonsense dictate the adoption of the
conventional n1eaning
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 exclude 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 stnte, the route is inter
not intra-state.
[564H, 565Al
•
j
K. VENKAMMA v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Krishna Iyer, J.)
563
Kazan Singh [1974) 2 S.C.R. 562; Aswatha11arayan v. State i 19661 1 SCR
87 op. 100-101. explained.
A
(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 rnaiy itself be a separate route and
B
may fall wholly \Vithin 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) 1'here 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 Central Government approval under the proviso to Section 680(3). tlowever, the permit
granted in orie 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 'fransport Authority
of Tamil Nadu arises.
The portion of the interstate route which fe1l \Vitbin
Andhra Pradesh stand nationalised 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]
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 Resp<:mdent 1-3.
•
P. Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate General and A. P. B. Parthasarathi for Respondent No. 4.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KausHNA IYER, J.-=-Nationalisation of road transport service is of
strategic significance to the country's development 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 i's 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 rr,atcrialise into an 'approved scheme' unless as desiderated by the proviBo
to Section 68D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
(hereinafter
referred 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
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
. F
G
H
5 64
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977) 3 S.C.R.
8 km., through Tamil Nadu. The r_oute Nellore-Ramapuram was, according to counsel for the existing private operator, an inter-state
route and non-compliance with Section 680(3) of M.V. Act aborted
the nationalisation. The counter-submission 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 categori·cs.
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 presenied by counsel
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 dar.l!wn, 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 convention:tl 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 reflected in Section 63 (1) and ( 4).
680(3) proviso and Section 20 of the Road Transport Corporation Act.
1950.
We are skirting 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 L'irough 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 rea.Jly
cover the case on hand.
Khazan Singh(') 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 diffennt 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
·---------
(!) [1974] f2l S.C.R. 502
•
-
K. VENKAMMA v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Krishna Iyer, !.)
5 65
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. Ordinarily-not invariablythe 'two termini' test is a working solution, not an inflexible formula.
Aswatharwrayan v. State (') 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. fn 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-div;'sion 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 rood
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 docs not deal with inter-State
routes at a11, and the contention on this head must be rejected." (emphasis supplied).
The facts and discussion bear out abundant,ly that there is nothing
in the ruling to suggest that even if a route traverses territory of another State it is n0ne-the-lcss 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 mystical reason, viz., that it overlaps a longer
route which is admittedly an inter-State route. It is elementary that
(I) (t966] (!) S.C.R. 87 at PP.100-101.
(2) [1973] 2 S.CR. 925.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
566
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 3 s.c.R.
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 wthin a single State in which case the former may be
inter-state while the latter will be an intra-state route.
In Abdulkhader' s (') 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 Amritsar
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 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 630(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 Gf the proviso
to s. 680(3). In the present case there is no scheme of
nationalisation relating to the inter-state route from Bellary
to Mantbralaya. 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. 680."
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 nationalisation ? Wholly invalidatory ? or
else, what? The proviso to Section 680(3) i.e. Central Government
approval has not been compiled with and so qua inter-state route the
nationalisation does not become effective.
Even so, two factors can
together salvage this nationalisation scheme.
(I) [1973] (2) SCR 925.
-
K. VENKAMMA v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Krishna Iyer, J.)
56 7
There can be no doubt that the scheme notified by one State wiil,
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
Central approval under the proviso to Section 680(3). That being
absent, the permit granted in one State may still be v~lid in another
State if the condition specified in the 2nd proviso to Section 63 (1 ). is
fulfilled. We may as well extract 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 perm.it granted by the Region"1 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 Transport 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 sixteen kilometres, the
permit shall be valid in other State in respect of that part of
the route which is in that other State notwithstanding that
such permit has not been counter-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 km. and so no
question of counter-signature by the State Transport Authority or the
Regional Transport Authority of Tamil Nadu State arises. The conclusion follows that the portions of the inter-state route which fall within Andhra Pradesh stand nation~lised, and consequently excludes private operators. But that strip of the inter-state route which falls within Tamil Nwu 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 ~uch 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
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
:i 68
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 3 S.C.R.
far as the portions which fall within Andhra Pradesh are concerned;
and (c) the nationalisation cannot become effective 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, wc direct the parties to suffer their costs
throughout.
S.R.
Appeal dismissed.
•