the two exemption notifications in issue the petitioners' case of exemption notifications attracting to inter-state routes as 'other routes' is not tenable as it is not conceivable that premium and lucrative routes would be clubbed together with the “lowly” rules routes from the point of view of profitability. The words “other routes” as defined in Explanation 4 to Rule 5.5(3) of the 1990 Rules are stated in the Rule itself to be confined to the operation of Rule 5.5 itself and cannot be construed to be a general classification under the 1990 Rules. The 1990 Rules define only rural route and sub-urban routes. A rural route specifically excludes municipality/UIT area of the district headquarter and even the tehsil headquarter, panchayat samiti headquarter, municipality, tow sub division headquarter. A suburban route means any route which the state government in public interest declares as a route and which links district headquarter with the town, which has been developed into an important route by way of industrialisation or by way of organisation. In my considered opinion, in the event the interpretation of petitioners were to succeed, it would entail inclusion of premium and lucrative inter-state within the meaning of “other routes” to the exclusion of lesser lucrative sub-urban routes and even routes lying exclusively within the area of municipality or UIT on both. Such a construction of the words “other routes” for the purpose of exemption notifications in issue would be mechanical and quite plainly even absurd. I am of the considered view that one way or the other the petitioners have not been able to satisfy this court that words “other routes” in notifications dated 9-3-2011 and 6-3-2013 include the premium lucrative inter-state routes, consequent to which buses running thereon and purchased during the prescribed period would be entitled to the benefit of exemption notifications dated 9-3-2011 and 6-3-2013.
