PETITIONER: ADARSH TRAVELS BUS SERVICE & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT17/10/1985 BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J) MISRA, R.B. (J) KHALID, V. (J) CITATION: 1986 AIR 319 1985 SCR (3) 661 1985 SCC (4) 557 1985 SCALE (2)880 CITATOR INFO : RF 1986 SC1112 (1) R 1987 SC 29 (2) RF 1987 SC 711 (3) RF 1987 SC 714 (4) R 1987 SC 958 (4) R 1988 SC 303 (2) D 1988 SC2047 (7) APL 1990 SC 412 (3,4) RF 1992 SC1888 (9) ACT: Motor Vehicles Act 1939: Sections 68B, 68C & 68D Nationalised or notified route - Right of private operator to operate on common over-lapping sector - Imposition of Corridor restrictions - Permissibility of. Scheme - Preparation and publishing of - Approving or modifying of - Interest of travelling public - Protection of Necessity. Words & Phrases: route - Meaning of - Section 2(28A) Motor Vehicles Act 1939- D HEADNOTE: The appellants in the appeals were holders of stage carriage permits over certain intra-state routes as well as inter-state routes. Parts of the routes on which they were plying their stage carriages were notified under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. They contended that they may be permitted to ply their stage carriages over the entire route by imposing "corridor restrictions i.e. not picking up or setting down any passengers at any point on the nationalised part of the routes". In the appeals to this court the question was: where a route is nationalised under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 whether a private operator with a permit to ply a stage carriage over another route but which has a common over-lapping sector with the nationalised route can ply his vehicle over that part of the over-lapping common sector if he does not pick up or set down passengers on the over-lapping part of the route. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that a route" according to the definition in Section 2(28A) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 meant a line drawn between two terminii and if the portion of it had been nationalised, it would have no effect whatsoever on the permits to ply state carriages on the 662 route, and that the complete exclusion of private operators from the common sector would be violative of article 14 and also ultra vires section 68-D of the Act- It was further contended that the provisions of Chapter IV and Chapter IVA of the Act must be construed in such a manner as to allow permit holders to ply their stage carriages notwithstanding that parts of their route are also parts of notified routes. Dismissing the appeals and special leave petitions, ^ HELD :1(a) None of the schemes contains any saving clause in favour of operators plying or wanting to ply stage carriages on common sectors. However, there is invariably a clause in the scheme to the effect that no person other than the State Government Undertaking will be permitted to provide road transport service on the route specified in the scheme. In view of this provision in the scheme there is a total prohibition of private operators from plying stage carriages on the whole or part of the notified routes. The appellants cannot therefore contend that they can ply their vehicles on the notified routes. [678 G-679 A] (b) When preparing and publishing the scheme under section 68-C and approving or modifying the scheme under section 68-D care must be taken to protect, as far as possible, the interest of the travelling public who could in the past travel from one point to another without having to change from one service to another enroute. This can always be done by appropriate clauses exempting operators already having permits over the common sector from the scheme to enable them to ply their vehicles over common sectors without picking up or setting down passengers on the common sectors. If such a course is not feasible the State Legislature may intervene and provide some other alternative. [667 F-H] 2. The right of the members of the public to pass and re-pass over a highway including the right to use motor vehicles on the public road existed prior to the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and was not its creation. The State could control and regulate the right for the purpose of ensuring the safety, peace and good health of the public. As an incident of this right of passage over a highway, a member of the public was entitled to ply motor vehicles for pleasure or pastime or for the purpose of trade and business subject to permissible control and regulation by the State. [666 G - 667A] 663 Saghir Ahmed v. State of U.P., [1955] 1 S.C.R 707, referred to. 3. Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 was bodily introduced by Amending Act No. 100 of 1956 to provide for the nationalisation of road transport services. Section 68-B gives over-riding effect to the provisions of Chapter IVA and the rules and orders made thereunder over the provisions of Chapter IV ant any other law for the time being in force. [667 E; 668 B] 4. While the provisions of Chapter IVA are devised to over-ride the provisions of Chapter IV and it is expressly so enacted, the provisions of Chapter IVA are clear and complete regarding the manner and the effect of the take over of the operation of a road transport service by tho State Transport Undertaking in relation to any area or road or operation thereof. The initial requirement of the initiation of a scheme is that the State Transport Authority must think it necessary in the public interest to provide sufficient, adequate, economical and properly Coordinated State Transport Service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof to the exclusion, complete or partial or other persons or otherwise. Even at thus stage, the State Transport Undertaking is required to apply its mind to the question of complete or partial exclusion of other persons or otherwise for operating transport services. Thereafter objection to the scheme are to be heard. All existing operators providing transport facilities along or near the area or the route proposed to be covered by the scheme are to be heard. Any operator who is likely to be affected by total or partial exclusion can thus, object to the scheme and suggest such modifications as may protect him. A hearing is required to be given and the hearing is no empty formality. Even thereafter, the State Transport Undertaking as well as the State Government are empowered to cancel or modify the scheme under section 68E. Therefore, if in the actual working of the approved scheme any difficulty or hardship is experienced by the public or by other operators such difficulty may be removed and hardship relieved by appropriate action under section 68E. Both section 68F and the proviso to section 68FF provide for the issue of temporary permits to private operators if the State Transport Undertaking has not applied for a permit temporary or otherwise in respect of a scheme published or approved. At every stage, abundant provision is thus, made to protect the public interest as also the interest of private operators by providing for consideration and re- consideration of any problems that may arise out of a proposed, published or approved scheme. It is in this context that section 68-C and 68 HH must be construed. [671C - 672B] 664 5. A careful and diligent perusal of sections 68-C, 68- D(3) and 68-FF in the light of the definition of the expression "route" in section 2(28A) appears to make it manifestly clear that once a scheme is published under section 68-D in relation to any area or route or portion thereof, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial of other persons or otherwise, no person other than the State Transport Undertaking may operate on the notified area or notified route except as provided in the scheme itself. A necessary consequence of these provisions is that no private operator can operate his vehicles on any part or portion of a notified area or notified route unless authorised 80 to do by the terms of the terms of the scheme itself. He may not operate on any part or portion of the notified route or area on the mere ground that the permit as originally granted to his covered the notified route or area. [672 C-E] 6. It is well known that under the guise of the so called "corridor restrictions" permits over longer routes which cover shorter notified routes or "overlapping" parts of notified routes are more often that not mis-utilised since it is need to nigh impossible to keep a proper check at every point of the route. Often times, permits for plying stage carriage from a point a short distance beyond one terminus to a point at a short distance beyond another terminus of a notified route have been applied for and granted subject to the 80 called "corridor restrictions" which are but mere ruses or traps to obtain permits and to frustrate the scheme. If indeed there is any need for protecting the travelling public from inconvenience, the State Transport Undertaking and the government will ha e to make sufficient provision in the scheme itself to avoid inconvenience being caused to the travelling public. [672 - 673C] Ram Sanehi Singh v. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation [1971] 3 S.C.C. 797; Nilkantha Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 728; C.P.C. Motor Service Mysore v. The State of Mysore & Another [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 717; S. Abdul Khader Saheb v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal Bangalore & Ors., [1973] 1 S.C.C. 357, referred to. Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal [1975] 1 S.C.R. 615, approved. Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. The Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal [1975] 1 S.C.R. 493, over-ruled. JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.. 1021
of 1976 etc.
665
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.8.1976 of the
Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 248 of 1973.
J.P. Goyal, R.K. Garg, Yogeshwar Prasad, S.N. Kacker,
O.P. Rana, K.K.. Venugopal, Rajesh, V.K. Verma, Suman
Kapoor, R.K. Jain, R.P. Singh, R.A. Sharma, S.K. Jain, Mrs.
Rani Chhabra, S.R. Srivastave, R.B. Mehrotra, Mrs. C.
Markandeya, Raju Ramachandran, P.K. Pillai, Raj Narain
Munshi, Sudhansu Atreya, Gopal Subramaniam, Mrs. Shobha
Dikshit, S.K. Bisaria, B.D. Sharma, S.C. Birla and B.Y.
Maheshwari for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. These appeals have been placed
before us primarily to resolve a conflict between Ram Sanehi
Singh v. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation [1971] 3
S.C.C. 797, Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v.
Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and Others [1975] 1 S.C.R.
493, and Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore
Revenue Appellate Tribunal and others [1975] 1 S.C.R. 615.
The question for our consideration is, where a route is
nationalised under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,
whether a private operator with a permit to ply a stage
carriage over another route but which has a common
overlapping sector with the nationalised route can ply his
vehicle over that part of the overlapping common sector if
he does not pick up or drop passengers on the overlapping
part of the route? The answer to the question really turns
on the terms of the scheme rather than on the provisions of
the statute, as we shall presently show.
We will mention here the facts of a few cases which are
illustrative of the question raised. In Civil Appeal No. 684
of 1981, the appellants hold a stae carriage permit over
the route Meerut to Ambala via Bamanheri, Deoband, Gagalheri
and Saharanpur. One part of the route, namely Meerut to
Bamanheri is also part of a nationalised route Meerut-
Bamanheri-Hardwar while yet another part of the route,
namely, Gagalheri to Saharanpur is part of another
nationalised route Hardwar-Dehradun-Gagalheri Saharanpur.
The question has arisen whether the petitioners may be
allowed to ply their stage carriage over the whole of the
route Meerut-Bamanheri-Deoband-Gagalheri-Saharanpur-Ambala
provided that they observe ‘corridor restrictions’, that is,
provided they do not pick up or set down any passengers
between Meerut and Bamanheri and between Gagalheri and
Saharanpur In Civil Appeal Nos. 1909 and 1910 of 1981, the
appellants were applicants for
666
the grant of stage carriage permits over the route Etah-
Dhumari Sidhupur-Patiyali. The route Etah-Dhumari-Daryaganj-
Qaimganh had already been notified under Chapter IV-A of
the Motor Vehicles Act. As part of the route over which the
appellate applied for permits to ply stage carriages had
already been notified under Chapter IVA of the Motor
Vehicles Act, their applications for the grant of permits
were rejected. They claimed that they should have been
granted permits by imposing “corridor restrictions” over
that part of the route which had been notified. In Civil
Appeal No. 1021 of 1976, the appellant held a permit for
plying a stage carriage over the inter-state route,
Allahabad to Rewa. The permit is said to have been granted
in favour of another individual, originally under an inter-
state agreement between the State of Uttar Pradesh and
Madhya Pradesh. On the failure of the original permit-holder
to obtain a renewal of the permit he lost the permit and it
was thereafter granted to the appellant. Part of the route
between Allahabad and Chakghat via Panari was nationalised
by the Uttar Pradesh Government, The whole of the route Rewa
to Allahabad was nationalised by the Madhya Pradesh
Government with the concurrence of the Central Government,
but with exemptions in favour of the existing operator
plying under inter-state agreements, though the matter has
not been made very clear to us. me appellant claims that
notwithstanding the nationalisation of the route from
Allahabad to Chakghat, he is entitled to ply that stage
carriage over that part of the route also by observing
“corridor restrictions”. In Civil Appeal No. 2921 of 1981,
the State of Rajasthan has nationalised part of an inter-
state route and the complaint is that the appellant should
have been permitted to ply his stage carriage over the
entire route with “corridor restrictions” over the
nationalised part of the route. In Civil Appeal Nos. 164-166
of 1982, the complaint is that a very insignificant portion
of the route on which the appellants hold stage carriage-
permits is included in a nationalised route and therefore,
the scheme should have exempted the operation of private
stage carriages over the common sector.
The right of the members of the public to pass and re-
pass over a highway including the right to use motor
vehicles on the public road existed prior to the enactment
of the Motor Vehicles Act and was not its creation. The
State could control and regulate the right for the purpose
of ensuring the safety, peace, and good health of the
public. As an incident of his right of passage over a
highway, a member of the public was entitled to ply motor
vehicles for pleasure or pastime or for the purpose of
667
trade and business, subject, of course, to permissible
control and regulation by the State, Saghir Ahmed v. State
of U.P., [1955] 1 S.C.R. 707. Under Article 19 (6) (ii) of
the Constitution, the State can make a law relating to the
carrying on by the State or by a Corporation, owned or
controlled by the State of any particular business, industry
or service whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of
citizens or otherwise. The law could provide for carrying on
a service to the total exclusion of all the citizens; lt may
exclude some of the citizens only; it may do business in the
entire State or a portion of the State, in a specified route
or part thereof. The word ‘service’ has been construed to be
wide enough to take in not only the general motor service,
but also the species of motor service. There are no
limitations on the States power to make laws conferring
monopoly on it in respect of an area, and person or persons
to be excluded, Kondala Rao v. A.P.. State Road Transport
Corporation, A.I.R. [1961] S.C. 82. All this is now well
established by the various decisions of this court.
Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for the
nationalisation of road transport services in the manner
prescribed therein. No question of the vires of any
provision of Chapter IVA on any ground has been raised
before us. Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act was bodily
introduced into it by Amending Act No. 100 of 1956. It
further underwent substantial amendments by Act 56 of 69 of
1970 which came into effect on March 2, 1970. We may mention
here 6.2(28A) defining ‘route’ was also introduced by Act 56
of 69. ‘route’ was defined as meaning ‘a line of travel
which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a
motor vehicle between one terminus and another. The
introduction of 8. 2(28A) defining the expression ‘route’
appears to have been necessitated to dispel the confusion
consequent upon the seeming acceptance by High Court in
Nilkantha Prasad and Others v. State of Bihar, [1962] Supp.
1 S.C.R. 728 of the suggested difference between ‘route’ and
‘highway’ by the Privy Council in Kalani Valley Motor
Transit Co. Ltd., v. Colombo Ratnapura Omnibus Co. Ltd.,
1946 A.C. 338 where it was said, “A highway” is the physical
track along which an omnibus runs, whilst a “route” appears
to their Lordships to be an abstract conception of line of
travel between one terminus and another, and to be something
distinct from the highway traversed ……. there may be
alternative roads leading from one terminus to another but
that does not make the route any highway the same.” The
present definition of route makes it a physical reality
instead of an abstract conception and no longer make it
something
668
distinct from the highway traversed. Getting back to the
highway and Chapter IVA, we first notice s.68-A(a) which
defines road transport service to mean a service of / tor
vehicles carrying passengers or goods or both by road for
hire or reward. Next, and this is important, 8. 68-B gives
over-riding effect to the provisions of Chapter IVA and the
rules and orders made thereunder over the provisions of
Chapter IV and any other law for the time being in force.
Section 68-C provides for the ‘preparation and publication
of scheme of road transport service of a State Transport
Undertaking’. Since the answer to the question raised turns
primarily on the interpretation of sec. 68-C, it is
desirable to extract the same. It is as follows :
68-C. Where any State Transport Undertaking is of
opinion that for the purpose of providing an
efficient, adequate, economical and properly
coordinated road transport service, it is
necessary in the public interest that road
transport services in general or any particular
class of such service in relation to any area or
route or portion thereof should be run and
operated by the State Transport Undertaking,
whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of
other persons or otherwise, the State Transport
Undertaking may prepare a scheme giving
particulars of the nature of the services proposed
to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be
covered and such other particulars respecting
thereto as may be prescribed, and shall cause
every such scheme to be published in the Official
Gazette and also in h other manner as the State
Government may direct.
The policy of the legislature is clear from s.68-C that the
State Transport Undertaking may initiate a scheme for the
purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and
properly coordinated road transport service to be run and
operated by the State Transport Undertaking in relation to
any area or route o. portion thereof. It may do 80 if it is
necessary in the public interest. me scheme may be to the
exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or
otherwise. m e scheme should give particulars of the nature
of the service proposed to be rendered, the area or route
proposed to be covered and such other particulars as may be
prescribed. me scheme has to be published in the Official
Gazette as well as in any other manner that the State
Government may direct. The object of publishing this scheme
is to invite objections to the scheme. Section 68-D enables
(i)
669
any person already providing transport facilities by any
means along or near the area or route proposed to be covered
by the scheme; (ii) any association representing persons
interested in the provision of road transport facilities
recognized in this behalf by the State Government; and (iii)
any local authority or police authority within whose
jurisdiction any part of the area or route proposed to be
covered by the scheme lies to file objections to the scheme
before the State Government within 30 days from the date of
its publication in the Official Gazette. Clause 2 of sec.
68-D empowers the State Government to consider the
objections, give an opportunity to the objector or his
representatives and the representatives of the State
Transport Undertaking to be heard in the matter if they so
desire and approve or modify the scheme. Clause 3 of sec.
68-D requires the scheme as approved or modified to be
published in the Official Gazette whereupon the scheme
becomes final and shall thereafter be called an approved
scheme. There 18 a proviso to clause 3 which provides that
no scheme which relates to any inter-state route shall be
deemed to be an approved scheme unless lt has been published
with the previous approval of the Central Government.
Section 68-E enables the State Transport-Undertaking to
cancel or modify any scheme published under 88. 68-D(3)
after following the procedure laid down in sec. 68-C and
sec. 68-D in respect of certain matters, such as, the
increase in the number of vehicles or the number of trips,
change in the type of vehicles without reducing the sitting
capacity, extension of the route or area without reducing
the frequency of the service, alteration of the time-table
without reducing the frequency of the service. m e State
Transport Undertaking need not follow the procedure laid
down in sec. 68-C and sec. 68-D if the previous approval of
the State Government is obtained and if the scheme 18 one
relating to any route or area in respect of which the road
transport services are to be run and operated by the State
Transport Undertaking to the complete exclusion of other
persons. Section 68-E, sub-sec. 2 enables the State
Government, at any time, if it considers necessary in the
public interest so to do, to modify a scheme published under
sec. 68-D(3) after giving an opportunity of being heard to
the State Transport Undertaking and any other person who in
the opinion of the State Government is likely to be affected
by the proposed modification. Section 68-F(1) obliges the
Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport
Authority, as the case may be, to grant to the State
Transport Undertaking the necessary permits on its applying
for the same in pursuance of an approved scheme. The permits
have to be issued notwithstanding anything to the contrary
in Chapter IV. Section 68-F(l-A) oblige
670
the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport as
the case may be, to issue temporary permits to the State
Transport Undertaking, for the period intervening between
the date of publication of the scheme and the date of
publication of the approved or modified scheme. The State
Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority
must, however, be satisfied that it is necessary in the
public interest to increase the number of vehicles operating
in such area or route or portion thereof previously.
Section 68-F(1-C) enables the State Transport Authority or
the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, to
grant to private operators temporary permits if no
application for a temporary permit is made under sub-sec.(1-
A) in respect of the area or route or portion thereof
specified in the scheme. Section 68-F(1-D) prohibits the
grant or renewal of a permit, save as otherwise provided in
sub-sec.(1-A) and sub-sec.(1-C) during the period
intervening between the date of publication of any scheme
and the date or publication of the approved or modified
scheme. Sub-sec. 2 of sec. 68-F enables the State Transport
Authority the Regional Transport Authority as the case may
be, for the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme
in respect of a notified area or notified route, to refuse
to entertain any application for the grant or renewal of any
permit or reject any such application as may be pending, to
cancel any existing permit, and to modify the terms of any
existing permit so as to render the permit ineffective
beyond a specified date, to reduce the number of vehicles
authorised to be used under the permit and to curtail the
area or route covered by the permit in 80 far as such permit
relates to the notified area or notified route. Section 68-
FF prohibits the grant of any permit except in accordance
with a provision of the scheme, once a scheme has been
published under sec.68-D(3) in respect of any notified area
or notified route. This is an important provision and we may
extract it here. It is as follows:
68-FF
where a scheme has been published under sub-
section 3 of sec.68-D in respect of any notified
area or notified route, the State Transport
Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as
the case may be, shall not grant any permit except
in accordance with the provisions of the scheme.
There is, however, a proviso which enables the grant of a
temporary permit to any person in respect of such notified
area
671
or notified route if no application for a permit has been
made by A the State Transport Undertaking. Section 68-G and
68-H prescribe the principles and method of determining
compensation and its payment to the holders of existing
permits which cancelled or modified. Section 68-I empowers
the State Government to make rules for the purpose of
carrying into effect the provisions of the Chapter and in
particular in accordance with the various matters specified
in sub-sec. 2
It is thus seen that while the provisions of Chapter
IV-A are devised to override the provisions of Chapter IV
and it is expressly so enacted, the provisions of Chapter
IVA are clear and complete regarding the manner and effect
of the take over of the operation or road transport
service by the State Transport Undertaking in relation to
any area or route or portion thereof. While on the one hand,
the paramount consideration is the public interest, the
interest of the existing operators are sufficiently well-
taken care of and such slight inconveniences to the
travelling public as may be inevitable are sought to be
reduced to a minimum. To begin with the State Transport
Undertaking must think it necessary in the public interest
to provide efficient, adequate, economical and properly
coordinated State Transport services in relation to any area
or route or portion thereof, to the exclusion complete or
partial of other persons or otherwise. This is the initial
requirement for the initiation of a scheme. Even at that
stage, the State Transport Undertaking is required to apply
its mind to the question of complete or partial exclusion of
other persons or otherwise from operating transport services
in relation to any area or route or portion thereof. There
is ample and sufficient guidance to the State Transport
Undertaking for the application of mind. Thereafter
objections to the scheme are to be heard. All existing
operators providing transport facilities along or near the
area or the route proposed to be covered by the scheme are
to be heard. Therefore, it will be open to any operator who
is likely to be affected by total or partial exclusion to
object to the scheme and suggest such modification as may
protect him. A hearing is required to be given and the
hearing is no empty formality as decisions of this Court
have shown. Even that is not an end of the matter. Even
thereafter, the State Transport Undertaking as well as the
State Government are empowered to cancel or modify the
scheme under sec. 68-E. In other words, if in the actual
working of the approved scheme any difficulty or hardship is
experienced by the public or for that matter by other
operators, such difficulty may be removed and hardship
relieved by appropriate action under
672
section 68-E. both sec.68F and the proviso to sec.68-FF
provide for the issue of temporary permits to private
operators if the State Transport Undertaking has not applied
for a permit temporary or otherwise in respect of scheme
published or approved. We thus find chat at every stage,
abundant provision is made to protect the public interest as
also the interest of private operators by providing for
consideration and reconsideration of any problems that may
arise out of a proposed, published or approved scheme. It is
in that context, we must construe sec.68-C and sec.68HH both
of which provisions have been extracted by us earlier.
A careful and diligent perusal of sec.68-C, sec.68-D(3)
and sec.68FF in the light of the definition of the
expression ‘route’ in sec.2(28-A) appears to make it
manifestly clear that once a scheme is published under
sec.68-D in relation to any area or route or portion
thereof, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial of
other persons or otherwise, no person other than the State
Transport Undertaking may operate on the notified area or
notified route except as provided in the scheme itself. A
necessary consequence of these provisions is that no private
operator can operate his vehicle on any part or por-ion of a
notified area or notified route unless authorised so to do
by the terms of the scheme itself. He may not operate on any
part or portion of the notified route or area on the mere
ground that the permit as originally granted to him covered
the notified route or area. We are not impressed by the
various submissions made on behalf of the appellants by
their several counsel. The foremost argument was that based
on the great inconvenience which may be caused to the
travelling public if a passenger is not allowed to travel,
say, straight from A to on a stage carriage, to ply which on
the route A to a person X has a permit, merely because a
part of the route from to somewhere between the points A and
is part of a notified route. The answer to the question is
that this is a factor which will necessarily be taken into
consideration by the State Transport Undertaking before
publishing the scheme under sec.68-C, by the Government
under sec.68-D when considering the objections to the scheme
and thereafter either by the State Transport Undertaking or
by the Government when the inconveniences experienced by the
travelling public are brought to their notice. me question
is one of weighing in the balance the advantages conferred
on the public by the nationalisation of the route C-D
against the inconveniences suffered by the public wanting to
travel straight from A to B. On the other hand, it is quite
well known that under The guise of
673
the so called ‘corridor restrictions’ permits over longer
routes which cover shorter notified routes or ‘overlapping’
parts of notified routes are more often than not
misutilised since it is next nigh impossible to keep a
proper check at every point of the route. It is also well
known that often times permits for plying stage carriages
from a point a short distance beyond one terminus to a point
a short distance beyond another terminus of a notified route
have been applied for and granted subject to the so-called
corridor restrictions, which are but more ruses or traps to
obtain permits and to frustrate the scheme. If indeed there
is any need for protecting the travelling public from
inconvenience as suggested by the learned counsel we have no
doubt that the State Transport Undertaking and the
Government will make a sufficient provision in the scheme
itself to avoid inconvenience being caused to the travelling
public.
One of the submissions urged was that a route,
according to definition, meant a line drawn between two
terminii and therefore, route AB cannot be the same route as
CD even if C & D happened to be two points on the highway
from A to B. It was argued that if route AB was different
from route CD, the nationalisation of route CD had no effect
whatsoever on the permits to ply stage carriages on the
route AB. This argument is specious and is only to be stated
to be rejected. In fact, whatever argument was open to the
learned counsel on the basis of the decision of the Privy
Council in Kelani Valley Motor Transit Co. Ltd.. v. Colombo-
Ratnapura Omnibus Co. Ltd. (supra) is no longer open to them
in view of the definition of route inserted as sec. 2(28-A)
of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Amending Act of 1969. We do
not have the slightest doubt that route AB covers and
includes every part of the particular highway from A to
traversed by the Motor vehicle along the route. It is
impossible to accept the argument that only the terminii
have to be looked at and the rest of the highway ignored in
order to discover a route for the purposes of the Motor
Vehicles Act. Equally without substance is the plea that if
an operator does not pick up or set down any passenger
between the two points of the common sector he cannot be
said to be plying a state carriage between these two points.
The argument is entirely devoid of substance for the simple
reason that the operator does charge the passenger for the
distance travelled along the highway between these two
points also. Another argument which was advanced and which
is also lacking in substance is that a complete exclusion of
private operators from the common sector would be violative
of Art. 14 and that it would be ultra vires sec. 68-D. We
are unable to see how either Art.14 or sec.68-D of the
Motor Vehicles Act hit a scheme
674
which provides for complete exclusion of private operators
from the whole or any part of the notified area. Almost all
these submissions have been considered and met by the
majority judgment in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation
v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 615,
to which we shall presently refer.
In C.P.C. Motor Service, Mysore v. The State of Mysore
Anr., [1962] supp. 1 S.C.R. 717, the impugned scheme
provided for taking over certain stage carriage services to
the complete exclusion of private operators. It provided:
The State Transport Undertaking will operate
services to the complete exclusion of other
persons (1) on all the notified inter-district
routes except in regard to the portions of inter-
district routes lying outside the limits of Mysore
District, and also (ii) over the entire length of
each of the inter-district route lying within the
limits of Mysore District
Certain persons who possessed stage carriage permits to ply
vehicles on inter-district and inter-state routes which
overlapped the Mysore District challenged the scheme and
contended that their permits should not be affected merely
because parts of the routes were within the Mysore District.
Their contention was that since the terminii of the routes
on which they were operating vehicles were outside Mysore
District it could not properly be said that any portion of
their route had been taken over merely because it lay within
the Mysore District. It was held by this court that a route
meant not only the notional line but also the actual road
over which the motor vehicles ran and in view of the fact
that the scheme reserved all the routes within the Mysore
District to the State Transport Undertaking, no private
operator could be allowed to ply his vehicle on the common
sector which was within the Mysore District. His route
automatically steel pro tanto cut down to only that portion
which lay outside the Mysore District.
Even before the introduction of the definition of route
in sec. 2(28-A)) by the 1969 amendment, in Nilakanth Prasad
and Others v. State of Bihar (supra), the court understood
the word ‘route’ on practically the same lines with
reference to sec. 68-C and sec. 68-F. The court said,
This means that even in those cases where the
675
notified route and the route applied for run over
a common sector, the curtailment by virtue of the
notified scheme would be by excluding that portion
of the route or, in other words, the road common
to both. The distinction between “route” as the
physical track disappears in the working of
Chapter IVA, because you cannot curtail the route
without curtailing a portion of the road, and the
ruling of the Court to which we have referred,
would also show that even if the route was
different, the area at least would be the same.
The ruling of the Judicial Committee cannot be
made applicable to the Motor Vehicles Act,
particularly Chapter IV-A, where the intention is
to exclude private operators completely from
running over certain sectors or routes vested in
State Transport Undertakings. In our opinion,
there fore, the appellants were rightly held to be
disentitled to run over those portions of their
routes which were notified as part of the scheme.
Those portions cannot be said to be different
routes, but must be regarded as portions of the
routes of the private operators from which the
private operators stood excluded under s. 68-
F(2)(c)(iii) of the Act.
In Ram Sanehi Singh v. Bihar State Road Transport
Corporation & ors. (supra), there was a slight note of
discordance. The appellant there possessed a permit to ply a
stage carriage on a rout-e which had a common sector of five
miles of a notified route. On the examination of the scheme,
the Court found that there was nothing in the notified
scheme which completely excluded the other holders of
permits from plying their stage carriages in pursuance of
permits issued to them from terminii not on points on the
notified route. It was held that merely because the
appellant had to run his vehicle on a part of the notified
route without the right to pick up passengers or to drop
them, his permit to the extent of the overlapping portion
could be said to be ineffective. We are afraid that this
decision must be confined to its own facts. The learned
judges did not notice the earlier decision of the court in
CPC Motor Services, Mysore v. The State of Mysore and Anr.
(supra) and Neelkanth Prasad and Ors. v. The State of Bihar
(supra). They also failed to notice that while sec. 68-C
provides for preparation and publication of scheme giving
particulars of the services proposed to be run and operated
by the State Transport Undertaking in relation to any area
or route to the exclusion, complete or
676
partial, of other persons or otherwise. Section 68-FF also
debars the State Transport Authority and the Regional
Transport Authority from granting any permit except in
accordance with the provisions of the scheme.
In S. Abdul Khader Saheb v. The Mysore Revenue
Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore & Ors. [1973] 1 S.C.C. 357,
the court approved the view of the High Court of Karnataka
that,
“when once on a route or a portion of the route
there has been total exclusion of operation of
stage carriage services by operators other than
the State Transport Undertaking by virtue of a
clause in an approved scheme, the authorities
granting permit under Chapter IV of the Motor
Vehicles Act, should refrain from granting a
permit contrary to the scheme.”
In Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. The Mysore
Revenue Appellate Tribunal [1975] 1 S.C.R. 493, Beg and
Chandrachud JJ, departing from the views generally taken
till then, took the view that a scheme which totally
excluded inter-state private operators from using any part
of a notified route must make the intention clear. There was
a difference between area and route. Route denoted the
abstract conception of line of travel. A difference in the
two terminii of two routes would make the two routes
different even if there was overlapping. Unless the scheme
clearly indicated that the user of any portion of the
highway covered by the notified route was prohibited, inter-
state operators could not be debarred from plying their
vehicles over the overlapping part of the inter-state route
merely because of the physical fact of the overlapping of
the two routes. The learned judges did not notice the
earlier decisions of the court in C.P.C. Motor Service,
Mysore v. The State of Mysore & Anr. (supra) and Abdul
Khader v. The Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal (supra).
Nilkanth Prasad’s (supra) case was noticed but by-passed
with the observation “whatever may be said about the
correctness of the decision” etc.
In Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore
State Transport Appellate Tribunal [1975] 1 S.C.R. 615, all
the earlier cases were noticed and lt was held,
It is, therefore apparent that where a private
transport owner makes an application to operate on
a route, which overlaps even a portion of the
notified
677
route i.e. where the part of the highway to be
used by A the private transport owner traverses on
a line on the same highway on the notified route,
then that application has to be considered only in
the light of the scheme as notified. If any
conditions are placed then those conditions have
to be fulfilled and if there is a total
prohibition then the application must be rejected.
…………………………………..
………….
This Court has consistently taken the view that if
there is prohibition to operate on a notified
route or routes no licences can be granted to any
private operator whose route traversed or
overlapped any part or whole of that notified
route. The intersection of the notified route may
not, in our view, amount to traversing or
overlapping the route because the prohibition
imposed applied to a whole or part of the route on
the highway on the same line of the route. An
intersection cannot be said to be traversing the
same line, as it cuts across it.
The learned judges expressly dissented from the decision of
Beg and Chandrachud, JJ. in Mysore State Transport
Corporation v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal [1975] 1
S.C.R. 493, and approved the decisions of the court in
Nilkanth Prasad’s case (supra) and Abdul Khader’s case
(supra). We agree with the view taken by this court in
Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore Revenue
Appellate Tribunal [1975] 1 S.C.R. 615, and dissent from the
view taken’ in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v.
The Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal [1975] S.C.R. 493. We
however wish to introduce a note of caution. When preparing
and publishing the scheme under s. 68-C and approving or
modifying the scheme under s.68-D care must be taken to
protect, as far as possible, the interest of the travelling
public who could in the past travel from one point to
another without having to change from one service to another
enroute. This can always be done by appropriate clauses
exempting operators already having permits over common
sector from the scheme and by incorporating appropriate
conditional clauses in the scheme to enable them to ply
their vehicles over common sectors without picking up or
setting down passengers on the common sectors. If such a
course is not feasible the State Legislature may intervene
and provide some other alternative as was done by the Uttar
Pradesh Legislature by the enactment of the
678
Uttar Pradesh Act No. 27 of 76 by sec. 5 of which the
competent authority could authorise the holder of a permit
of a stage carriage to ply his stage carriage on a portion
of a notified route subject to terms and conditions
including payment of licence fee. There may be other methods
of not inconveniencing through passengers but that is
entirely a matter for the State Legislature, the State
Government and the State Transport Undertaking. But we do
wish to emphasise that good and sufficient care must be
taken to see that the travelling public is not to be
needlessly inconvenienced.
Shri R.K. Garg urged that the provisions of Chapter IV
and Chapter IV-A must be reconciled in such a manner as to
allow permit holders to ply their stage carriages
notwithstanding that parts of their route are also parts of
notified routes. We fail to understand the argument having
regard to the express legislative pronouncement in s. 68-B
that the provisions of Chapter IV-A and the rules and orders
made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter IV of the Act.
In one of the cases it was argued before us that though
the scheme framed by the Uttar Pradesh Transport Undertaking
prohibited the plying of private stage carriages on the
notified part of an inter-state route within the State of
Uttar Pradesh, a later Madhya Pradesh Scheme published by
the Madhya Pradesh State Transport Undertaking pursuant to
an inter-state agreement allowed the plying of stage
carriages by private operators on that part of the route
which was in Uttar Pradesh also. The argument was that the
later scheme superseded the earlier scheme and therefore the
operators could ply their vehicles on the Uttar Pradesh part
of the route also. We are unable to see how the scheme
framed by the Uttar Pradesh State Transport Undertaking can
be superseded by the scheme framed by the Madhya Pradesh
State Transport Undertaking.
We are therefore unable to see any merit in any of the
Civil Appeals since none of the schemes placed before us
contain any saving clause in favour of operators plying or
wanting to ply stage carriages on common sectors. On the
other hand we found that invariably there is a clause to the
following effect : “No person other than the State
Government Undertaking will be permitted to provide road
transport services on the routes specified in paragraph 2 or
any part thereof”. In the face of a provision of this nature
in the scheme totally prohibiting
679
private operators from plying stage carriages on a whole or
part A of the notified routes, it is futile to contend that
any of the appellants can claim to ply their vehicles on the
notified routes or part of the notified routes. All the
appeals and Special Leave Petitions are therefore dismissed,
with costs which we quantify at Rs.2,500 in each. All the
interim orders of this court which enabled the appellants to
operate their vehicles on notified routes or part of
notified routes or which enabled the appellants to apply for
and obtain permits to 80 operate, with or without the so-
called corridor restrictions are hereby vacated.
N.V.K. Appeals and Petitions dismissed.
680