( 1 ) A scheme or Nationalisation of the route Chitradurga to Davanagere was promulgated by the appellant on 23-9-1987 and the same was approved. The validity of that scheme was challenged by the Private Operators including the present respondents-4 to 10 in Writ Petitions Nos. 16574 to 16579 of 1987 batch. By the Order of this Court dated 5/01/1988, the challenge was discountenanced and ultimately the scheme was held to be valid, Thereupon, the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Petition No. 3353/1988. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 21-3-1988. Thereafter, by proceedings of the Meeting of the Karnataka State Road Transport Authority, Bangalore, dated 5-2-1988, respondents 4 to 10 were called upon to produce the respective permits in Parts-A and B within 30 days from the date of receipt and obtain endorsement of curtailment of overlapping portions without fail. At this stage, it requires to be stated that the routes of these respondents either overlap or pass through the nationalised route of Chitradurga-Davanagere. It was at that stage, they preferred W. P. Nos. 8006/1988 batch contending that the routes on which they operate pass through the neighoouring State of Andhra Pradesh. Though both the termini lie within the State of Karntaka, they should be regarded as inter-State routes. If so considered, they would be entitled to the benefit of the exemption of the scheme which clearly exempt the operators who are running on inter-State route from the purview of the nationalisation scheme. For these submissions, reliance was placed on K. Venkamma v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 1170 . ( 2 ) IN opposition to this, the Karnataka State Transport Authority took two fold objections. In so far as both the termini of the routes on which respondents-4 to 10 operate lie within the State of Karnataka, it cannot be called Inter-State Routes. Reliance was placed in this regard on Section 63 (1), Proviso 2 of Motor Vehicles Act. It was further submitted that A. I. R, 1977 SC 1170 is distinguishable on facts. ( 3 ) THE second contention urged is that in any event when these operators questioned the validity of the scheme nothing prevented them from putting forth this ground and seeking benefit of the exemption clause. It was further submitted that A. I. R, 1977 SC 1170 is distinguishable on facts. ( 3 ) THE second contention urged is that in any event when these operators questioned the validity of the scheme nothing prevented them from putting forth this ground and seeking benefit of the exemption clause. Even though such a plea was raised, for reasons best known to these respondents, that plea was not pursued. Therefore, the principle of constructive res judicata would come into play. ( 4 ) THE learned single Judge on a consideration of these arguments, having regard to the categorical ruling of the Supreme Court in AIR 1977 SC 1170 , held that the route must be regarded as Inter-State. If that be so, the benefit of the exemption clause would be available to respondents-4 to 10. ( 5 ) AS regards the principle of constructive res judicata, the learned single Judge discountenanced that plea. It is under these circumstances, the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation has come up with this appeal. The same arguments are reiterated before us. It is also urged that having regard to the other rulings in D. M. Thippeswamy v. The Mysore Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, AIR 1972 SC 1674 and Ch. Khazan Singh v. State of Utter Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 669 , it should be held that AIR 1977 SC 1170 is not an authority for the proposition that where both the termini lie within one State it could be characterised as inter-State route. The further contention of the appellant is on the principle of constructive res judicata. ( 6 ) THESE contentions are opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondents by contending that in AIR 1977 SC 1170 in no uncertain terms, it is held that even though both the termini lie within one State if the routes were to pass through another State, it must be held to be inter-State. In this regard, the Supreme Court reversed the finding of the High Court. Therefore, there is no escape for the appellant from the said ruling. Neither AIR 1972 SC 1674 nor 1969 Supreme Court Decisions, Vol. 9, p. 1072 (H. K. Swarnamachar v. R. T. A.) deal with this aspect of the matter at all. In this regard, the Supreme Court reversed the finding of the High Court. Therefore, there is no escape for the appellant from the said ruling. Neither AIR 1972 SC 1674 nor 1969 Supreme Court Decisions, Vol. 9, p. 1072 (H. K. Swarnamachar v. R. T. A.) deal with this aspect of the matter at all. ( 7 ) THE principle of constructive res judicata does not apply because earlier these respondents challenged the validity of the very scheme, but now they accepted the scheme and are merely claiming the benefit under the scheme and brought to the notice of this Court that the S. T. A. , has no jurisdiction to call upon them to surrender the permit (Parts-A and B) because of the exemption clause. Where, therefore, a statutory authority purports to do something in the teath of the exemption clause that would be forbidden by law. Therefore, as a corollary the respondents have prayed to quash the proceedings dated 5-2-1988. ( 8 ) WE will now advert to these contentions in seriatim. The first contention is whether the routes in question on which respondents-4 to 10 operate are inter-State routes. ( 9 ) IT is not denied before us that both the termini of the routes on which respondents-4 to 10 operate lie within the State of Karnataka. It is common case before us that portions of route lie within the State of Andhra Pradesh. Under these circumstances, the question is whether it could be called inter-State route? An identical question arose in AIR 1977 SC 1170 . The factual aspect requires to be noted for proper appreciation. On this question, after referring to various rulings, in paragraph-9 it was held thusthe 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 nationalised, and consequently excludes private operators. 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 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 S. 63 (1) of the N. V. Act. "then again in paragraph-10. , it was held as follows :-"we may point out that S. 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 S. 63 (1) of the M. V. Act. We, therefore, reach the conclusion that (a) the route Nellore-Ramapuram is an inter-Stale route; (b) the scheme of nationalisation is operative even in the absence of the previous approval of the Central Government, so far as the portion 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 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 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, Appeal dismissed. (emphasis supplied) we find to escape at all for the appellant to wriggle out of the said ruling, However, what is cited before us is AIR 1972 SC 1674 . In the circumstances, while dismissing, the appeal we direct the parties to suffer their costs throughout, Appeal dismissed. (emphasis supplied) we find to escape at all for the appellant to wriggle out of the said ruling, However, what is cited before us is AIR 1972 SC 1674 . To distinguish the case, we find what came up for consideration was as to the existing permit-holder on the inter-State route. It may also be stated the route that came up for consideration in that case was Chitradurga (in erstwhile Mysore State) to Srisaila (in Andhra Pradesh ). Therefore, this does not afford much assistance to the appellant. Turning to 1969 Supreme Court Decisions Vol. 9 p. 1072, we find that again does not deal with this specific point because there again the question was as to the existing permit-holders on the inter-State routes and therefore the Court endeavoured to find out who were the existing permit holders. This again is not of any help to the appellant in this Writ Appeal. ( 10 ) THE next point to be considered is the constructive principle of res judicata. Earlier the validity of the scheme was challenged, but it way unsuccessful. But that does not mean presently accepting that scheme respondents 4 to 10 are debarred from claiming the benefit. What now they want to do is only to pray before us that the State Transport Authority may be forbidden from calling upon them to produce the respective permits and obtain endorsement of curtailment of overlapping portions because of the exemption. We find in such an event where respondents-4 to 10 complain lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Karnataka State Transport Authority, Bangalore, it is well founded and is not hit by the constructive principle of res-judicata. ( 11 ) IN the result, we dismiss these Writ Appeals. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .