PETITIONER: MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. RESPONDENT: THE MYSORE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT17/05/1974 BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH ALAGIRISWAMI, A. CITATION: 1974 AIR 1940 1975 SCR (1) 615 CITATOR INFO : R 1984 SC 953 (2) RF 1986 SC 319 (1,7,13) R 1992 SC1888 (9) ACT: Motor Vehicles Act, Sec. 68C-Inter-state operators whether prohibited from plying vehicles on intrastate routes-Meaning of route and area--Interpretation of scheme-Complete exclusion whether can be implied. HEADNOTE: Certain Intra-state routes were nationalised under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. There were three approved schemes of nationalisation namely Anekal Scheme, Gulbarga Scheme and the Bangalore Scheme. Parts of these Intra-state routes overlapped inter-state routes over, which private transporters were granted permits to ply their vehicles on condition that they will neither pick up nor drop passengers on any overlapping parts of routes. The preamble to Anekal Scheme and Gulbarge Scheme do not state that the scheme is of a total exclusion. The preamble to the Bangalore Scheme, however, mentions the complete exclusion of all other operators from certain routes. The Anekal Scheme gives the termini with intermediate points. The names of the Inter-State operators have not been mentioned in any of these three Schemes. The schemes show that the term "route" is used in each scheme for services between two termini. 'The appellant Corporation object to the permits granted to the Inter-State Transporters in so far as they cover overlapping portions of Intra-state routes on the basis of three schemes. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : (1) There can be no doubt that the appellant corporation has power to frame a scheme under Section 68(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, Providing that Road Transport Services in general or in any particular class, in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run and by the State Transport Undertaking whether to the exclusion, complete or partial of other persons or otherwise. This power includes the power to exclude even inter-state motor operators altogether from a part of any notified route. [494G] (2)Section 68C however requires as a condition precedent to any exclusion of private operators that the scheme should give particulars of the nature of services proposed to be rendered, the area of route proposed to be covered and such other particulars as may be prescribed. Each scheme has to be Published in the official Gazette. A scheme finally emerging after opportunities are given for objections by persons interested. [495B-C] (3)A scheme which totally excludes inter-state private operators from sing any part of a notified route must make the intention to do that clear. The Act makes a distinction between notification of an area and of a route. An area may cover a number of routes. A route is not merely the physical surface covered by the highway to be traversed. but connotes the abstract concept of line of travel. A difference in the two termini will make two routes different even if there is an overlapping surface. of the road common to two routes. Unless a scheme clearly indicates that the user of every portion of a highway covered by an intrastate notified "route" so conceived is prohibited. also to an inter-state motor vehicle operator, who really plies on a different route inasmuch as his termini are bound to be different from those of an intrastate route, the interstate operators may not be completely debarred from the user of the overlapping part of an inter-state route. A more physical overlapping of the two is not enough to exclude the private inter-state operators by any necessary implication. Such an exclusion must be made clear and unequivocal in the scheme. [496B. D. F-H] 494 (4). The rules require that existing operators. on each route must be named and the numbers of their vehicles must be given before they 'could be deemed to be excluded from any part of a route. Unless their names are mentioned they cannot come forward to object as persons affected. [497D-E]. (5) The Inter-state operators were not meant to be denied the use of the overlapping portions of routes covered by the scheme. Their names were not mentioned as required by the rules. The Anekal and Gulbarga schemes did not even talk of the complete exclusion. : The Bangalore Scheme mentions complete exclusion but this exclusion seems to be, in respect of operators Providing services between the terming mentioned there and not merely using overlapping portions, of the notified rules incidentally. No explanation is forthcoming as to why names and the numbers of the inter- state transporters were not mentioned in the scheme. [501C- F] Nilkanth Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar, [1962] 1 S.C.R. 728, Kelani, Valley Motor Transit Co. v. Colombo Ratnapura Omnibus Co. [1946] A.C. 338 and Kondala Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 82, distinguished JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1755 to
1756 of 1969, 362 to 363 and 1918 to 1920 of 1970 and 490 to
492 of 1973.
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 10th October, 1968, 11th March, 1969, 24th March, 1969
and 16th June, 1969 of the Mysore High Court in W.P. Nos. 3
322 and, 379/ 66, W.P. Nos. 800, 1186, 1188, 1190 1191,
1228-31 1233/69 and 3910, 3913, 3921, and 3932/68, 1189 and
1192/69, 1234/69, 20682070/69 respectively and special leave
petitions: Nos. 2015 to 2112 and 2408 to 2412 of 1969. From
the Judgment and order dated 11th November, 1969 and 16th
June, 1969 of the Mysore High Court in W.P. Nos. 3908, 3912,
3923, 3925, 3926, 3230, 3933 and 3933/ 68, and 2067, 2078
and 2080-2082/68.
Shyamla Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for the
appellants/Petitioners.
S. S. Ganguli and H. K. Puri for respondents.
P. K. Pillai for the respondent.
A. G. Ratnaparkhi for the respondent.
S. V. Gupte, M. R. V. Achar, M. Rangaswamy and B. P. Singh
for respondent.
Y. S. Chitale, M. Rangaswamy, M. R. V. Achar and B. P.
Singh for respondent.
D. N. Mishra for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BEG, J.-There are twenty two appeals by Special leave
together with thirteen connected special leave petitions
involving a common question of law for decision before us.
This question arises out of three approved schemes, which
may be called the Anekal Scheme dated 15-4-1959, the
Gulbarga Scheme dated 18-2-1960, and the Bangalore Scheme
dated 7-6-1960, for the nationalisation under Chapter IVA of
th– Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Act’), of transport services on certain routes lying
within the State of Mysore. But, parts of these intrastate
routes overlap inter-state routes over which private
transporters were granted permits and then their renewals by
the State Transport authorities to ply their vehicles. The
Mysore
495
State Road Transport Corporation objects to these permits in
so far as they cover overlapping portions of intrastate
routes. The common question of law which arises may be
formulated as follows:
“Can a permit be granted to an Inter-State
Transport Operator for the whole of his route
despite the fact that a part of the route
overlaps a part of a notified intra-State
route” ?
There can be no doubt that the Mysore State Transport Under-
taking has the power to frame a scheme under section 68C of
Chapter IVA of the Act, providing “in the public interest
that road transport services in general or any particular
class of such service in relation to 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”. This power
includes the power to exclude even inter-state motor
operators altogether from a part of any notified route. (See
: Nilkanth Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar(1), Standard
Motor Union Pvt Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors(2); S.
Abdul Khader Saheb Vs. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal &
Ors.(3) The Transport authorities have no power to deviate
from or modify the terms of approved schemes which have the
force of law. They can issue or otherwise deal with permits
only in accordance with the provisions of the schemes which
may be either partial or total exclusion of private
operators from notified routes. We have to determine
whether the schemes before us are of partial or total
exclusion.
Section 68C requires, as a condition precedent to any
exclusion of private operators under a scheme of
nationalisation from “any area or route or portion thereof”,
that the scheme should give “particulars of the nature of
services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed
to be covered and such other particulars respecting thereto
as may be prescribed”. Each scheme has to be published in
the official Gazette and also “in such manner, as the State
Govt. may direct”. A scheme finally emerges, after
opportunities given under Section 68D of the Act for
objections by persons interested in providing transport
facilities as left as by local and police authorities within
the area or upon the routes proposed to be covered by a
scheme, as an approved scheme in which the original
proposals may or may not have been modified. Each scheme so
approved can be either cancelled or modified by the State
Transport Undertaking under Section 68E of the Act in
accordance with the procedure laid down by Sections 68C and
68D of the Act.
The power of the State Transport Undertaking to prohibit the
use of any portion of a route by Inter-state operators has
not been questioned before us. Nevertheless, it may be
pertinent to point out that this Court thus indicated in
Saghir Ahmed & Anr. v. State of U.P. &Ors.,(4) the nature of
the right of the public to use public roads (at page 717) :
“But the right of the public to use motor
vehicles on the
public road cannot, in any sense, be regarded
as a right
(1) [1962](1) Suppl. S.C.R. 728.
(2) [1969](1) S.C.R. 464.
(3) AIR 1973 S.C. 534.
(4) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 707, 717.
496
created by the Motor Vehicles Act. The right
exists anterior to any legislation on this
subject as an incident of public rights over a
highway. The State only controls and
regulates it for the purpose of ensuring
safety, peace, health and good morals of the
public. Once the position is accepted that a
member of the public is entitled to ply mother
vehicles on the public road as an incident of
his right of passage over a highway, the
question is really immaterial whether he plies
a vehicle for pleasure or pastime or for the
purpose of trade and business. The nature of
the right in respect of the highway is not in
any way affected thereby and we cannot agree
with the learned Advocate-General that the
user of a public road for purposes of trade is
an extraordinary or special use of ‘the
highway which can be acquired only under
special sanction from the State”.
It is enough for the purpose of the cases before us to note
the distinction between the right to use a road which may be
a part of a notified “route” and the right to ply motor
vehicles on hire upon a ,.route” for which a permit has to
be obtained under the Act. Notification of a route under a
scheme prevents issue of permits contrary to the scheme for
the route. Assuming for the purposes of the cases before
us, that the State Transport Undertaking can totally exclude
interstate private operators from using any part of a
notified route, a scheme which has that effect must, at
least, make the intention to do that clear before it can
prevent the exercise of another wise legal right to ply
motor vehicles for hire on a public highway subject to
regulation of this kind of user by permits issues under the
Act. The question is, in our opinion, one of interpretation
of the scheme formulated in each case. Before interpreting
each of the three schemes mentioned above, we will refer to
the relevant provisions which have a bearing on questions of
interpretation of the schemes and of the particulars given
therein.
As each scheme of nationalisation is to be prepared in
public interest, Section 68C requires the State Transport
Undertaking to give particulars “of the nature of services
proposed to be rendered by it”. A distinction is made
between notification of an “area” and of a “route”. An
area, which has to be notified under Section 2(i) of the
Act, may cover a number of routes. A route, as defined by
the insertion of (28A) made by the Act 56 of 1969, in
Section 2 of be Act, is “a line of travel which specifies
the high-way which may be traversed by a motor vehicle
between one terminus and another”. Whatever may have been
the meaning of the word “route” before this insertion, it
appears to us that, after this clarification, a route is not
merely the physical surface covered by the high-way to be
traversed, but the abstract concept of “a line of travel”,
which connects one terminus with another, has also been
introduced into the legal definition of a ,.route”. The two
concepts are now so interlined that a route would not be
properly indicated by merely specifying the highway which
may be traversed without giving its two terming. And, a
difference in-the two terming will make two routes different
even if there is an overlapping surface of the road common
to routes. In other words, the two
497
terming are an essential part of the concept of a route.
Notification of routes takes place for purposes of
nationalisation of transport services on the routes. The
routes are not nationalised as physical surfaces of notified
areas reserved for use by State owned vehicles only, but
what is nationalised is the provision of certain transport
services on those routes.
Unless a scheme clearly indicates that the user of every
portion of a highway covered by an intrastate notified route
is prohibited also to an inter-state motor vehicle operator,
who really plies on a different ” route” inasmuch as its
termini are bound to be different from those of an
intrastate route, the inter-state operator may not be
completely debarred from the user of the overlapping part of
an intrastate route. A mere physical overlapping of the two
may not be enough to excluder the private interstate
operators by any necessary implication. If the intention is
to exclude such user by an operator of another route a part
of which over-laps a notified route, that intention must be
made, clear and unequivocal by the scheme in order to have
that effect.
Section 68C also mentions other particulars of a scheme
which may be prescribed. These particulars have been
prescribed in the State of Mysore by means of rules notified
in the Mysore Gazette dated 27-2-1958. The relevant portion
of the first rule reads as follows
“1. Every scheme or modified scheme for
passenger transport service shall contain the
following particulars :-
1. The area in relation to which the scheme
is proposed.
2. Whether City/Town service or moffusil
service.
3. The route or routes (with their starting
points, termini, intermediate stations and
route length) in which the State Road
Transport Undertaking proposes to introduce
its services to the exclusion of private
operators.
4. The number of existing stage carriages
on each route with their number of trips and
the names of their operators.
5. The maximum and minimum number of stage
carriages proposed to be operated by the State
Transport Undertaking to the exclusion of
private operators in relation to each route
and the type and seating capacity of each
vehicle.
6. The maximum number of trips proposed to
be performed on each route.
7. Number of vehicles intended to be kept
in reserve to maintain the service and to
provide for special occasions”.
With regard to the above mentioned particulars, it was
submitted, on behalf of the inter-state operators, that sub-
rules 3 and 4 of rule 1 set out above, require that existing
operators on each route must be named and the numbers of
their vehicles must be given before they could be deemed to
be excluded from any part of a route. It was also urged
that, unless the scheme indicates which persons are treated
as providing a service or plying on the notified route, they
could not be expected to come forward to object as persons
affected. Hence,
498
it is submitted, if the State Transport Undertaking itself
treated them as persons unaffected by nationalisation of
transport services on certain intrastate routes, its
intention would appear to be to leave untouched or preserve
the rights of inter-state, operators who were already there
merely to use parts of notified routes. The argument was
that the inter-state operators were, by a clear implication,
permitted by each scheme to use overlapping parts of
notified intrastate routes. They were, it was urged, thus
me-ant to be, excluded from the purview of the prohibition
in each scheme.
In some of the cases before us the Regional Transport
Officer had himself either granted or renewed the permits of
the inter-state operators. In other cases, where the
Regional Transport Officer had rejected the applications of
the interstate operators concerned, the operators had
succeeded in obtaining permits from the final state
Appellate Authority functioning under the Act. The High
Court had, in every case, upheld the grants of permits to
the inter-state operators. It had found the schemes to be
ambiguous. But, it overruled the contention that the
schemes warranted total prohibition or exclusion of inter-
state; operators on overlapping parts of notified routes
mainly on the ground that such a contention could not be
advanced for the first time before it in the course of
arguments.
It was also contended that, the Manager of the appellant
Corporation had impliedly admitted before, the Transport
authorities that interstate operators were not totally
prohibited by any scheme from using overlapping portions
because he confined his objection to the sufficiency of the
number of buses serving on the overlapping parts of routes
and had not relied upon any parts of the schemes for any
alleged- total prohibition of the use of the overlapping
parts of notified routes by the inter-state operators.
It may be mentioned here that a condition had been imposed
by the final Appellate Transport Authority upon each inter-
state operator that he will neither pick up nor drop
passengers on any part of the overlapping notified route.
Therefore, one of the questions argued before us is whether
the Transport authorities had any power or jurisdiction to
grant permits to interstate, operators even by annexing such
conditions so that overlapping portions of notified routes
could be merely used by the inter-state operators concerned
for taking their stage carriages and passengers through them
but not to provide services for passengers to or from any
place falling upon any portions of the notified routes. It
was submitted, on behalf of the appellant Corporation, that
all that the Transport authorities could do was to give
effect to the provisions of each scheme but not to do
anything which may be a modification of the scheme.
Although, the actions of the Transport authorities and the
conduct or a concession of the Manager of the Corporation
may be relevant in considering whether a scheme was so
framed as to clearly convey to the officials of the
Corporation and to the, Transport authorities concerned that
it was a scheme of total prohibition extending to even user
of any portion of an overlapping notified route by an inter-
state operator, yet, the real question to be considered is
whether
499
the scheme itself in each case, on the contents of it and
the language employed by the framers of it, warrants total
exclusion of the kind contended for before us on behalf of
the Corporation.
It is true that this Court does not ordinarily interfere
with the discretion of the High Court to refuse to allow a
question to be raised for the first time in arguments before
it. But, it is pointed out that the question raised before
the High Court and argued before us is one of jurisdiction
or power of the Transport authorities which goes to the root
of the case so that the High Court should have permitted it
to be raised and decided it. We find that the High Court
did, albeit indirectly, consider the question by holding
that the schemes were ambiguous and did not rule out the
interpretation that they were not schemes of total
prohibition as the schemes could and should have done if
that was intended. The High Court had also correctly made
observations indicating that, where such an intention of
total prohibition of even the case of a portion of the
notified route is present, the intention must be
communicated in clear enough language so as not to leave the
transport authorities in any doubt as to what they are to
enforce. And, as we have granted special leave on this very
question and have heard arguments on it, we will consider
the question briefly and not dispose of the cases before us
simply on the ground that the question should have been
raised at an earlier. stage on behalf of the appellant
Corporation. We will, therefore, examine the contents of
each of the three approved schemes in which the preamble and
clauses 3 to 7 have a special bearing on the question under
consideration.
In the Anekal Scheme, the preamble does not state that the
scheme is of total exclusion. Clauses 3 to 17 of the
approved scheme are stated as follows :
“3.The route or routs (with their start- As in statement
ing points, termini, intermediate 1 appended
stations and route (length) in
which the State Transport Under-
taking will introduce its services the exclusion of private operators. 4. The number of existing stage carria- As in statement ges on each route with the number of 2 appended
trips and the names of their operators.
5. The maximum and minimum number
of stage carriages to be operated by
the State Road Transport Undertak-
ing to the exclusion of private opera-
tors in relation to each route and the
type and seating capacity of each
vehicle.
5(a)
Maximum and minimum number of stage carriages to be
operated; As in Statement 1 appended
5(b)
Type and Seating capacity of each vehicle
Semi-saloon, single dickers. The seating capacity of each
vehicle is 36 to 45 seat.
6. The maximum number of trips to As in statement 1
be performed on each route. appended
7. The number of vehicles to be 25 per sent of
kept in reserve to maintain the services the operating
and to provide for special occasions. fleet”.
In the Gulbarga scheme, the preamble states that approval is
given, to the originally published proposals subject to
certain modifications, One of the modifications is-that the
words “or any portion thereof’
500
wherever they appear in column 2 of the, statement appended
to the scheme published by the General Manager shall be
deleted. The, relevant clauses 3 to 7 read as follows :
“3. The route or routes (with their starting
points, termini, intermediate stations and
route length) in which the State Road
Transport Undertaking shall introduce its
services, to the exclusion of private
operators.
As in statement appended.
4. The number of existing stage carriages on
each route with the number of trips and the
names of their operators.
5. The maximum and minimum number of stage
carriages to be operated by the State Road
Transport Undertaking to the exclusion of
private operators in relation to each route
and the type and sating capacity of each
vehicle.
6. The maximum number of trips to be
performed on each route.
7. The number of vehicles to be kept and to
maintain the services to provide for special
occasions.
Twenty-five percent of the operating fleet
(4) (a) At present, only the Mysore Govern-
ment Road Transport Department is operating
service on these routes, and the number of
existing stage carriages and the number of
trips are as in statement appended.
5(a) Maximum and minimum, number of stage
carriages to be operated As in statement
appended.,
5(b) Type and seating capacity of each
vehicle. Semi-saloon, single-deckers. The
seating capacity of each vehicle is 26 to 55
seats.
6 (a) As in statement appended.
7(a) Twenty-five per-cent of the operating
fleet”.
The preamble to the Bangalore scheme mentions
the following modifications of the original
proposals:
(a) that the passenger transport services on
the routes appearing at sl. Nos. 1 to 22 and
24, 25, 26, 27 anti 53 of the statement
appended including services between any two
places therein should be run and operated by
the State Transport Undertaking to the
complete exclusion of other operators
(b) Subject to (a) above, the State
Transport Undertaking should operate services
on the remaining routes appearing in the
statement appended between the two specified
terminals only, to the complete exclusion of
all other operators, excluding the inter-
mediate routes;”
The relevant clauses 3 to 7 are given here as
follows:
The route or routes (with their
startingpoints, termini, intermediate stations
and route length) in which the State Road
Transport Undertaking shall introduce its
services to the exclusion of private
operators.
(a) The passenger transport services on the
routes appearing at Sl. Nos. 1 to 22, and 24,
25, 26, 27, 39 and 53 of the statement
appended including services between any two
places therein should be run and operated by
the State Transport Undertaking to the
complete exclusion of other operators;
501
(b) Subject to (a) above, the State Transport Undertaking
should operate services on the remaining ,routes appearing
in the statement appended between the two specified
terminals only to the complete exclusion of all other
operators, excluding the intermediate routes;
4. The number of existing stage At present only the
carriages on each route with Mysore Government Road
the number of trips and the Transport Department is
names of their operators operating services on
these routes and in the
number of trips are as
in statement appended.
5. (a) The maximum and minimum (a) Maximum and minimum
number of stage carriages to of stage carriages to be
be operated by the State Road operated; As in the
Transport Undertaking to the statement appended.
exclusion of private operators (b) Type and seating
in relation to each route and capacity of each veh-
cile.
(b) the type and seating capacity Semi-saloon single-
of each vehicle dickers, the seating capacity of each vehicle is 26 to 35 seats.
6. The maxims number of trips As in statement appended
to be performed on each route
7. The number of vehicles to be Twenty-five per-cent of
kept in reserve to maintain the operating fleet.”
the services and to provide
for special occasions.
It may be mentioned here that clauses 3 and 4 of the three
schemes are apparently intended to carry out the provisions
of sub-rules 3 and 4 of the State Transport Undertaking
Mysore State Rules, 1958, Set out above. In the Anekal
scheme, the appended statement mentioned in clause 3 (in
purported compliance of sub rule 3) gives the termini with
intermediate points thereby indicating that the exclusive
service on each route is intended to be one which takes
place only between the given there and not as a mere
incident of service between other termini. The second
statement mentioned in clause 4 (in purported compliance of
sub-rule 4) gives the number of the existing sup carriages
and the names of their operators serving the prohibited
routes indicated in terms of their termini. Ile strongest
point of the inter-state operators is that their names are
not mentioned in the second appended statement. Hence, they
could not either object as persons whose rights were meant
to be affected or who could be compensated under Section 68G
after necessary modification or cancellation of their
permits for the overlapping portions. We, therefore. think
that the contention that inter-state operators were
apparently not meant to be denied the mere use of the
overlapping portions of routes covered by this scheme is
well supported. In fact, this is the more reasonable
inference. Similarly, the appended statements of the Gul-
barga scheme show that the term “route” is used in the
scheme for services between two termini and that persons
merely using portions of the route while travelling between
other termini are not totally prohibited the user of the
overlapping route. Lastly, as regards the Bangalore scheme,
the case of the appellant Corporation may, seem better
inasmuch as the words used there are : “the complete
exclusion of all
502
other operators excluding the intermediate routes”. But,
even here, the exclusion appears to be only of operators
providing services between the termini mentioned there and
not merely using overlapping portions of the notified routes
incidentally. If the exclusion of those using overlapping
portions of the surface of the, highway common to two
different routes was also really intended, they should have
been named in the appended statement and the numbers of
their stage carriages should have been given. No
explanation is forthcoming for this omission. Therefore,
the interpretation of the three schemes advanced on behalf
of the inter-state operators is more reasonable. In any
case, if the intention was really to exclude even the user
of the overlapping portions of notified routes by inter-
state operators, we do not see why the State Transport
Undertaking should have waited for so long and not modified
the scheme, as provided by Section 58E of the Act, and made
its intention clear instead of allowing litigation over this
issue for such a long time.
On behalf of the appellants, reliance was sought to be
placed strongly upon the meaning assigned to the term
“route’ by a Division Bench of this Court in Nilkanth
Prasad’s case (supra), where the view of the Privy Council
in Kelani Valley Motor Transit Co. v. Colombo Ratnapura
Omnibus Co.,(1) was distinguished on the ground that the
context of the ordinances before, the, Privy Council for
interpretation indicated that a “route” stood for “an
abstract conception of a line of travel between one terminus
and another, and to be something distinct from the highway
traversed”. Nilkanth Prasad’s case (supra) was decided
before the insertion of the definition in Section 2(28A) of
the Act before us. In it reliance was placed upon Kondala
Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation(2)
where the real question considered by this Court was whether
a route could also be an area. It was observed in Nilkanth
Prasad’s case (supra) (at p. 737-738)
“The distinction between “route” as the
notional line and “road” as the physical track
disappears in the working of Chap. IVA,
because you cannot curtail the route without
curtaining 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 Chap. IVA, where
the intention is to exclude private operators
completely from running over certain sectors
or routes vested in State Transport
Undertakings. In our opinion, therefore. the
appellants were rightly held to be disentitled
to run over those portions of their routes
which were notified as part of the scheme”.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the
inter-state operators relied strongly on H. C.
Narayanappa & Ors. v. The State of Mysore &
Ors.,(3) where a Constitution Bench of 5
Judges of this Court
(1) [1946] A.C. 338.
(2) AIR 1961 S.C. 82.
(3) [1960] (3) S.C. R. 742.
503
interpreted the very scheme dated 13-1-1959-
relating, to the Anekal area which is one of
the three schemes for interpretation before
us. It was held there (at p. 746)
“Statement I sets out the description of
fourteen routes with their intermediate
points, route length, number of buses to be
operated and the maximum number of trips to be
performed on each route”. By column 4 “the
number of existing stage carriages on each
route with the number of trips and the names
of their operators” are described “as in
statement 2 appended”. Statement 2 sets out
the names and places of business of fifty-six
operators together with the, routes operated
and the numbers of the stage carriages and
trips made by those operators. In the Anekal
area, there are thirty-one routes, which are
served by stage carriages operated by private
operators, and by the approval of the scheme,
only fourteen of those routes are covered by
the scheme”.
Hence, it was urged that the term “route’ was used in the
schemes under consideration with reference to a service
rendered to passengers between certain termini. Its
notification did not, it is urged, ipso facto, signify a
blanket-like interdict against the user of any and every
portion of a route conceived of as a prohibited area
reserved for the use of State owned carriages only which
private operators could not encroach upon or invade. The
Act itself gives power to nationalise motor transport
services upon and not the Surfaces of public highways.
Whatever may be said about the correctness of the decision
of this Court in Nilkanth Prasad’s case (supra) in the
context of the scheme before this Court for consideration in
that case and the provisions of the Act as they stood then,
we do not think that the ratio decidendi of that case is
applicable here. Upon the contents of the schemes before us
for interpretation we find that only operators named therein
or those who seek to provide “services” upon the routes
mentioned in the schemes,. in the sense that they carry
passengers travelling from one place. to another situated
only upon the notified routes, could be totally excluded
from using the highways which the notified routes cover. We
think that conditions were rightly imposed by the final
Transport Appellate Authority on the permits of interstate
operators to bring out what it understood the scheme to mean
in each case.
The result is that we do not see sufficient reason to
interfere with the view taken by the High Court and dismiss
these appeals and the special leave petitions. The parties
will bear their own costs in this Court.
P.H.P.
Appeals dismissed.
-LI 77S-P. CI/75
504