{"id":153710,"date":"1985-10-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1985-10-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985"},"modified":"2017-06-07T15:48:06","modified_gmt":"2017-06-07T10:18:06","slug":"adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985","title":{"rendered":"Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 17 October, 1985"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 17 October, 1985<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 319, \t\t 1985 SCR (3) 661<\/div>\n
Author: O C Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J), Venkataramiah, E.S. (J), Eradi, V. Balakrishna (J), Misra, R.B. (J), Khalid, V. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nADARSH TRAVELS BUS SERVICE & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT17\/10\/1985\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)\nMISRA, R.B. (J)\nKHALID, V. (J)\n\nCITATION<\/a>:\n 1986 AIR  319\t\t  1985 SCR  (3) 661\n 1985 SCC  (4) 557\t  1985 SCALE  (2)880\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1986 SC1112\t (1)\n R\t    1987 SC  29\t (2)\n RF\t    1987 SC 711\t (3)\n RF\t    1987 SC 714\t (4)\n R\t    1987 SC 958\t (4)\n R\t    1988 SC 303\t (2)\n D\t    1988 SC2047\t (7)\n APL\t    1990 SC 412\t (3,4)\n RF\t    1992 SC1888\t (9)\n\n\nACT:\n     Motor Vehicles  Act  1939:\t Sections  68B,\t 68C  &\t 68D\nNationalised or\t notified route\t - Right of private operator\nto operate  on common  over-lapping sector  - Imposition  of\nCorridor restrictions - Permissibility of.\n     Scheme -  Preparation and\tpublishing of - Approving or\nmodifying of - Interest of travelling public - Protection of\nNecessity.\n     Words &  Phrases: route  - Meaning\t of - Section 2(28A)\nMotor Vehicles Act 1939- D\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellants  in the  appeals were  holders of  stage\ncarriage permits  over certain intra-state routes as well as\ninter-state routes.  Parts of  the routes on which they were\nplying their stage carriages were notified under Chapter IVA\nof the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. They contended that they may\nbe permitted  to ply  their stage  carriages over the entire\nroute by imposing \"corridor restrictions i.e. not picking up\nor  setting   down  any\t passengers  at\t any  point  on\t the\nnationalised part of the routes\".\n     In the  appeals to this court the question was: where a\nroute  is  nationalised\t under\tChapter\t IVA  of  the  Motor\nVehicles Act  1939 whether  a private operator with a permit\nto ply\ta stage\t carriage over another route but which has a\ncommon over-lapping  sector with  the nationalised route can\nply his\t vehicle over  that part  of the over-lapping common\nsector if  he does not pick up or set down passengers on the\nover-lapping part of the route.\n     On behalf\tof the\tappellants, it\twas contended that a\nroute\" according  to the definition in Section 2(28A) of the\nMotor Vehicles\tAct 1939  meant a  line\t drawn\tbetween\t two\nterminii and  if the portion of it had been nationalised, it\nwould have  no effect whatsoever on the permits to ply state\ncarriages on the\n662\nroute, and  that the complete exclusion of private operators\nfrom the  common sector would be violative of article 14 and\nalso ultra  vires section  68-D of  the Act-  It was further\ncontended that\tthe provisions of Chapter IV and Chapter IVA\nof the\tAct must  be construed\tin such a manner as to allow\npermit holders\tto ply their stage carriages notwithstanding\nthat parts of their route are also parts of notified routes.\n     Dismissing the appeals and special leave petitions,\n^\n     HELD :1(a)\t None of  the schemes  contains\t any  saving\nclause in favour of operators plying or wanting to ply stage\ncarriages on  common sectors. However, there is invariably a\nclause in the scheme to the effect that no person other than\nthe  State  Government\tUndertaking  will  be  permitted  to\nprovide road transport service on the route specified in the\nscheme. In  view of  this provision in the scheme there is a\ntotal prohibition  of private  operators from  plying  stage\ncarriages on  the whole\t or part of the notified routes. The\nappellants cannot  therefore contend that they can ply their\nvehicles on the notified routes. [678 G-679 A]\n     (b) When  preparing and   publishing  the scheme  under\nsection 68-C  and approving  or modifying  the scheme  under\nsection 68-D  care must\t be taken  to  protect,\t as  far  as\npossible, the interest of the travelling public who could in\nthe past  travel from one point to another without having to\nchange from  one service to another enroute. This can always\nbe done\t by appropriate\t clauses exempting operators already\nhaving permits\tover the  common sector\t from the scheme  to\nenable them  to ply   their  vehicles  over  common  sectors\nwithout picking\t up or setting down passengers on the common\nsectors.  If  such  a  course  is  not\tfeasible  the  State\nLegislature   may   intervene\tand   provide\tsome   other\nalternative. [667 F-H]\n     2. The  right of  the members of the public to pass and\nre-pass over  a highway\t including the\tright to  use  motor\nvehicles on  the public\t road existed prior to the enactment\nof the\tMotor Vehicles\tAct, 1939  and was not its creation.\nThe State  could control  and regulate\tthe  right  for\t the\npurpose of ensuring the safety, peace and good health of the\npublic. As  an incident\t of this  right of  passage  over  a\nhighway, a  member of  the public  was entitled to ply motor\nvehicles for pleasure or pastime or for the purpose of trade\nand business  subject to  permissible control and regulation\nby the State. [666 G - 667A]\n663\n     Saghir Ahmed  v. State  of U.P.,  [1955] 1\t S.C.R\t707,\nreferred to.\n     3. Chapter\t IVA of\t the Motor  Vehicles  Act  1939\t was\nbodily introduced by Amending Act No. 100 of 1956 to provide\nfor the\t nationalisation of road transport services. Section\n68-B gives  over-riding effect\tto the provisions of Chapter\nIVA and\t the rules  and\t orders\t made  thereunder  over\t the\nprovisions of  Chapter IV  ant any  other law  for the\ttime\nbeing in force. [667 E; 668 B]\n     4. While  the provisions  of Chapter IVA are devised to\nover-ride the  provisions of  Chapter IV and it is expressly\nso enacted,  the provisions  of Chapter\t IVA are  clear\t and\ncomplete regarding  the manner\tand the\t effect of  the take\nover of\t the operation\tof a  road transport  service by tho\nState Transport\t Undertaking in relation to any area or road\nor  operation\tthereof.  The  initial\trequirement  of\t the\ninitiation of a scheme is that the State Transport Authority\nmust think  it necessary  in the  public interest to provide\nsufficient, adequate,  economical   and properly Coordinated\nState Transport\t Service in relation to any area or route or\nportion thereof\t to the\t exclusion, complete  or partial  or\nother persons  or otherwise.  Even at  thus stage, the State\nTransport Undertaking  is required  to apply its mind to the\nquestion of  complete or  partial exclusion of other persons\nor otherwise  for operating  transport services.  Thereafter\nobjection to  the scheme  are  to  be  heard.  All  existing\noperators providing  transport facilities  along or near the\narea or\t the route  proposed to be covered by the scheme are\nto be  heard. Any  operator who\t is likely to be affected by\ntotal or  partial exclusion  can thus,\tobject to the scheme\nand   suggest such  modifications   as may  protect  him.  A\nhearing is  required to be given and the hearing is no empty\nformality. Even\t thereafter, the State Transport Undertaking\nas well\t as the\t State Government are empowered to cancel or\nmodify the  scheme under  section 68E.\tTherefore, if in the\nactual working\tof the\tapproved scheme\t any  difficulty  or\nhardship is  experienced by the public or by other operators\nsuch difficulty\t may be\t removed and  hardship\trelieved  by\nappropriate action  under section  68E. Both section 68F and\nthe proviso  to\t section  68FF\tprovide\t for  the  issue  of\ntemporary  permits   to\t private   operators  if  the  State\nTransport Undertaking  has  not\t   applied  for\t   a  permit\ntemporary or  otherwise in respect of  a scheme published or\napproved. At  every stage,  abundant provision is thus, made\nto protect  the public\tinterest as  also  the\tinterest  of\nprivate operators  by providing\t for consideration  and\t re-\nconsideration of  any problems\tthat  may  arise  out  of  a\nproposed, published  or\t approved  scheme.  It\tis  in\tthis\ncontext that section 68-C and 68 HH must be construed. [671C\n- 672B]\n664\n     5. A careful and diligent perusal of sections 68-C, 68-\nD(3) and  68-FF in  the\t light\tof  the\t definition  of\t the\nexpression \"route\"  in section\t2(28A) appears\tto  make  it\nmanifestly clear  that once  a\tscheme\tis  published  under\nsection 68-D  in relation  to any  area or  route or portion\nthereof, whether  to the  exclusion, complete  or partial of\nother persons  or otherwise,  no person other than the State\nTransport Undertaking  may operate  on the  notified area or\nnotified route\texcept as  provided in\tthe scheme itself. A\nnecessary consequence of these provisions is that no private\noperator can  operate his vehicles on any part or portion of\na notified area or notified route unless authorised 80 to do\nby the\tterms of  the terms of the scheme itself. He may not\noperate on any part or portion of the notified route or area\non the\tmere ground that the permit as originally granted to\nhis covered the notified route or area. [672 C-E]\n     6. It  is well  known that\t under the  guise of  the so\ncalled \"corridor  restrictions\" permits\t over longer  routes\nwhich cover  shorter notified  routes or \"overlapping\" parts\nof notified  routes are\t more often  that  not\tmis-utilised\nsince it  is need  to nigh impossible to keep a proper check\nat every point of the route. Often times, permits for plying\nstage carriage\tfrom a\tpoint a\t short distance\t beyond\t one\nterminus to  a point  at a  short  distance  beyond  another\nterminus of  a notified\t route have  been  applied  for\t and\ngranted subject\t to the\t 80 called  \"corridor  restrictions\"\nwhich are  but mere  ruses or traps to obtain permits and to\nfrustrate the  scheme. If  indeed  there  is  any  need\t for\nprotecting the\ttravelling public  from\t inconvenience,\t the\nState Transport\t Undertaking and the government will ha e to\nmake sufficient\t provision in  the scheme  itself  to  avoid\ninconvenience being  caused to the travelling public. [672 -\n673C]\n     Ram  Sanehi   Singh  v.   Bihar  State  Road  Transport\nCorporation [1971]  3 S.C.C. 797; Nilkantha Prasad & Ors. v.\nState of  Bihar [1962]\tSupp. 1\t S.C.R.\t 728;  C.P.C.  Motor\nService Mysore v. The State of Mysore & Another<\/a> [1962] Supp.\n1 S.C.R.  717; S.  Abdul  Khader  Saheb\t v.  Mysore  Revenue\nAppellate Tribunal  Bangalore &\t Ors.,<\/a> [1973]  1 S.C.C. 357,\nreferred to.\n     Mysore  State  Road  Transport  Corporation  v.  Mysore\nRevenue\t Appellate Tribunal<\/a> [1975] 1 S.C.R. 615, approved.\n     Mysore State  Road Transport  Corporation v. The Mysore\nRevenue Appellate Tribunal<\/a> [1975] 1 S.C.R. 493, over-ruled.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal No.. 1021
\nof 1976 etc.
\n665<\/span>
\n     From the  Judgment and  Order dated  10.8.1976  of\t the
\nAllahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 248 of 1973.\n<\/p>\n
     J.P. Goyal,  R.K. Garg,  Yogeshwar Prasad, S.N. Kacker,
\nO.P.  Rana,  K.K..  Venugopal,\tRajesh,\t V.K.  Verma,  Suman
\nKapoor, R.K.  Jain, R.P. Singh, R.A. Sharma, S.K. Jain, Mrs.
\nRani  Chhabra,\tS.R.  Srivastave,  R.B.\t Mehrotra,  Mrs.  C.
\nMarkandeya,  Raju  Ramachandran,  P.K.\tPillai,\t Raj  Narain
\nMunshi, Sudhansu  Atreya,  Gopal  Subramaniam,\tMrs.  Shobha
\nDikshit, S.K.  Bisaria, B.D.  Sharma, S.C.  Birla  and\tB.Y.
\nMaheshwari for the appearing parties.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C
\n     CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J. These\t appeals  have\tbeen  placed
\nbefore us primarily to resolve a conflict between Ram Sanehi
\nSingh v.  Bihar State  Road Transport  Corporation [1971]  3
\nS.C.C. 797,  Mysore  State  Road  Transport  Corporation  v.
\nMysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and Others<\/a> [1975] 1 S.C.R.
\n493, and  Mysore State\tRoad Transport Corporation v. Mysore
\nRevenue Appellate  Tribunal and\t others<\/a> [1975] 1 S.C.R. 615.
\nThe question  for our  consideration is,  where a  route  is
\nnationalised under  Chapter IV-A  of the Motor Vehicles Act,
\nwhether a  private operator  with a  permit to\tply a  stage
\ncarriage  over\t another  route\t  but  which  has  a  common
\noverlapping sector  with the  nationalised route can ply his
\nvehicle over  that part\t of the overlapping common sector if
\nhe does\t not pick  up or  drop passengers on the overlapping
\npart of\t the route?  The answer to the question really turns
\non the\tterms of the scheme rather than on the provisions of
\nthe statute, as we shall presently show.\n<\/p>\n
     We will mention here the facts of a few cases which are
\nillustrative of the question raised. In Civil Appeal No. 684
\nof 1981,  the appellants  hold a  stae carriage permit over
\nthe route Meerut to Ambala via Bamanheri, Deoband, Gagalheri
\nand Saharanpur.\t One part  of the  route, namely  Meerut  to
\nBamanheri is  also part\t of  a\tnationalised  route  Meerut-
\nBamanheri-Hardwar while\t yet  another  part  of\t the  route,
\nnamely,\t Gagalheri   to\t Saharanpur   is  part\t of  another
\nnationalised  route  Hardwar-Dehradun-Gagalheri\t Saharanpur.
\nThe question  has arisen  whether  the\tpetitioners  may  be
\nallowed to  ply their  stage carriage  over the whole of the
\nroute\tMeerut-Bamanheri-Deoband-Gagalheri-Saharanpur-Ambala
\nprovided that they observe ‘corridor restrictions’, that is,
\nprovided they  do not  pick up\tor set\tdown any  passengers
\nbetween Meerut\tand  Bamanheri\tand  between  Gagalheri\t and
\nSaharanpur In  Civil Appeal  Nos. 1909 and 1910 of 1981, the
\nappellants were applicants for
\n666<\/span>
\nthe grant  of stage  carriage permits  over the\t route Etah-
\nDhumari Sidhupur-Patiyali. The route Etah-Dhumari-Daryaganj-
\nQaimganh had  already been   notified  under Chapter IV-A of
\nthe Motor  Vehicles Act. As part of the route over which the
\nappellate applied  for permits\tto ply\tstage carriages\t had
\nalready\t been  notified\t under\tChapter\t IVA  of  the  Motor
\nVehicles Act,  their applications  for the  grant of permits
\nwere rejected.\tThey claimed  that  they  should  have\tbeen
\ngranted permits\t by imposing  “corridor\t restrictions”\tover
\nthat part  of the  route which\thad been  notified. In Civil
\nAppeal No.  1021 of  1976, the\tappellant held\ta permit for
\nplying\ta   stage  carriage   over  the\t inter-state  route,
\nAllahabad to  Rewa. The\t permit is said to have been granted
\nin favour  of another individual, originally under an inter-
\nstate agreement\t between the  State  of\t Uttar\tPradesh\t and
\nMadhya Pradesh. On the failure of the original permit-holder
\nto obtain  a renewal of the permit he lost the permit and it
\nwas thereafter\tgranted to  the appellant. Part of the route
\nbetween Allahabad  and Chakghat\t via Panari was nationalised
\nby the Uttar Pradesh Government, The whole of the route Rewa
\nto  Allahabad  was  nationalised    by\tthe  Madhya  Pradesh
\nGovernment with\t the concurrence  of the Central Government,
\nbut with  exemptions in\t favour\t of  the  existing  operator
\nplying under  inter-state agreements,  though the matter has
\nnot been  made very  clear to  us. me  appellant claims that
\nnotwithstanding\t the   nationalisation\tof  the\t route\tfrom
\nAllahabad to  Chakghat, he  is entitled\t to ply\t that  stage
\ncarriage over  that part  of the  route\t also  by  observing
\n“corridor restrictions”.  In Civil  Appeal No. 2921 of 1981,
\nthe State  of Rajasthan\t has nationalised  part of an inter-
\nstate route  and the  complaint is that the appellant should
\nhave been  permitted to\t ply his  stage\t carriage  over\t the
\nentire\troute\twith  “corridor\t  restrictions”\t   over\t the
\nnationalised part of the route. In Civil Appeal Nos. 164-166
\nof 1982,  the complaint is that a very insignificant portion
\nof the\troute on  which the  appellants hold stage carriage-
\npermits is  included in\t a nationalised route and therefore,
\nthe scheme  should have\t exempted the  operation of  private
\nstage carriages over the common sector.\n<\/p>\n
     The right\tof the members of the public to pass and re-
\npass over  a  highway  including  the  right  to  use  motor
\nvehicles on  the public\t road existed prior to the enactment
\nof the\tMotor Vehicles\tAct and\t was not  its creation.\t The
\nState could  control and  regulate the right for the purpose
\nof ensuring  the safety,  peace,  and  good  health  of\t the
\npublic. As  an incident\t of his\t right\tof  passage  over  a
\nhighway, a  member of  the public  was entitled to ply motor
\nvehicles for pleasure or pastime or for the purpose of
\n667<\/span>
\ntrade and  business,  subject,\tof  course,  to\t permissible
\ncontrol and  regulation by  the State, Saghir Ahmed v. State
\nof U.P.,  [1955] 1  S.C.R. 707. Under Article 19 (6) (ii) of
\nthe Constitution,  the State  can make a law relating to the
\ncarrying on  by the  State or  by a  Corporation,  owned  or
\ncontrolled by the State of any particular business, industry
\nor service whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of
\ncitizens or otherwise. The law could provide for carrying on
\na service to the total exclusion of all the citizens; lt may
\nexclude some of the citizens only; it may do business in the
\nentire State or a portion of the State, in a specified route
\nor part thereof. The word ‘service’ has been construed to be
\nwide enough  to take  in not only the general motor service,
\nbut  also  the\tspecies\t of  motor  service.  There  are  no
\nlimitations on\tthe States  power to  make  laws  conferring
\nmonopoly on  it in respect of an area, and person or persons
\nto be  excluded, Kondala  Rao v.  A.P.. State Road Transport
\nCorporation, A.I.R.  [1961] S.C.  82. All  this is  now well
\nestablished by the various decisions of this court.\n<\/p>\n
     Chapter IVA  of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for the
\nnationalisation of  road transport  services in\t the  manner
\nprescribed  therein.   No  question  of\t the  vires  of\t any
\nprovision of  Chapter IVA  on any  ground  has\tbeen  raised
\nbefore us.  Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act was bodily
\nintroduced into\t it by\tAmending Act  No. 100  of  1956.  It
\nfurther underwent  substantial amendments by Act 56 of 69 of
\n1970 which came into effect on March 2, 1970. We may mention
\nhere 6.2(28A) defining ‘route’ was also introduced by Act 56
\nof 69.\t‘route’ was  defined as\t meaning ‘a  line of  travel
\nwhich specifies\t the highway  which may\t be traversed  by  a
\nmotor  vehicle\t between  one\tterminus  and  another.\t The
\nintroduction of\t 8. 2(28A)  defining the  expression ‘route’
\nappears to  have been  necessitated to\tdispel the confusion
\nconsequent upon\t the seeming  acceptance by  High  Court  in
\nNilkantha Prasad  and Others v. State of Bihar, [1962] Supp.
\n1 S.C.R. 728 of the suggested difference between ‘route’ and
\n‘highway’ by  the  Privy  Council  in  Kalani  Valley  Motor
\nTransit Co.  Ltd., v.  Colombo Ratnapura  Omnibus Co.  Ltd.,
\n1946 A.C. 338 where it was said, “A highway” is the physical
\ntrack along  which an omnibus runs, whilst a “route” appears
\nto their  Lordships to\tbe an abstract conception of line of
\ntravel between one terminus and another, and to be something
\ndistinct from  the highway  traversed …….  there may  be
\nalternative roads  leading from\t one terminus to another but
\nthat does  not make  the route\tany highway  the same.”\t The
\npresent definition  of route   makes  it a  physical reality
\ninstead of  an abstract\t conception and\t no longer  make  it
\nsomething
\n668<\/span>
\ndistinct from  the highway  traversed. Getting\tback to\t the
\nhighway and  Chapter IVA,  we first  notice s.68-A(a)  which
\ndefines road  transport service\t to mean  a service of \/ tor
\nvehicles carrying  passengers or  goods or  both by road for
\nhire or\t reward. Next,\tand this is important, 8. 68-B gives
\nover-riding effect  to the provisions of Chapter IVA and the
\nrules and  orders made\tthereunder over\t the  provisions  of
\nChapter IV  and any  other law\tfor the time being in force.
\nSection 68-C  provides for  the ‘preparation and publication
\nof scheme  of road  transport service  of a  State Transport
\nUndertaking’. Since  the answer to the question raised turns
\nprimarily  on\tthe  interpretation  of\t sec.  68-C,  it  is
\ndesirable to extract the same. It is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t  68-C. Where  any State Transport Undertaking is of
\n\t  opinion that\tfor  the  purpose  of  providing  an
\n\t  efficient,  adequate,\t  economical  and   properly
\n\t  coordinated  road   transport\t  service,   it\t  is
\n\t  necessary  in\t  the  public\tinterest  that\troad
\n\t  transport services  in general  or any  particular
\n\t  class of  such service  in relation to any area or
\n\t  route\t or   portion  thereof\tshould\tbe  run\t and
\n\t  operated  by\t the  State  Transport\tUndertaking,
\n\t  whether to  the exclusion, complete or partial, of
\n\t  other persons\t or otherwise,\tthe State  Transport
\n\t  Undertaking\tmay    prepare\t a   scheme   giving
\n\t  particulars of the nature of the services proposed
\n\t  to be\t rendered, the\tarea or route proposed to be
\n\t  covered  and\tsuch  other  particulars  respecting
\n\t  thereto as  may be  prescribed,  and\tshall  cause
\n\t  every such  scheme to be published in the Official
\n\t  Gazette and  also in\th other manner as the State
\n\t  Government may direct.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The policy  of the legislature is clear from s.68-C that the
\nState Transport\t Undertaking may  initiate a  scheme for the
\npurpose of  providing an efficient, adequate, economical and
\nproperly coordinated  road transport  service to  be run and
\noperated by  the State\tTransport Undertaking in relation to
\nany area  or route o. portion thereof. It may do 80 if it is
\nnecessary in  the public  interest. me\tscheme may be to the
\nexclusion,  complete   or  partial,   of  other\t persons  or
\notherwise. m  e scheme should give particulars of the nature
\nof the\tservice proposed  to be\t rendered, the area or route
\nproposed to  be covered and such other particulars as may be
\nprescribed. me\tscheme has  to be  published in the Official
\nGazette as  well as  in any  other  manner  that  the  State
\nGovernment may\tdirect. The object of publishing this scheme
\nis to  invite objections to the scheme. Section 68-D enables\n<\/p>\n
(i)
\n669<\/span>
\nany person  already providing  transport facilities  by\t any
\nmeans along or near the area or route proposed to be covered
\nby the\tscheme; (ii)  any association  representing  persons
\ninterested in  the provision  of road  transport  facilities
\nrecognized in this behalf by the State Government; and (iii)
\nany  local   authority\tor  police  authority  within  whose
\njurisdiction any  part of  the area  or route proposed to be
\ncovered by  the scheme lies to file objections to the scheme
\nbefore the  State Government within 30 days from the date of
\nits publication\t in the\t Official Gazette.  Clause 2 of sec.
\n68-D  empowers\t the  State   Government  to   consider\t the
\nobjections, give  an opportunity  to  the  objector  or\t his
\nrepresentatives\t and   the  representatives   of  the  State
\nTransport Undertaking  to be  heard in the matter if they so
\ndesire and  approve or\tmodify the  scheme. Clause 3 of sec.
\n68-D requires  the scheme  as approved\tor  modified  to  be
\npublished in  the  Official  Gazette  whereupon\t the  scheme
\nbecomes final  and shall  thereafter be\t called an  approved
\nscheme. There  18 a  proviso to clause 3 which provides that
\nno scheme  which relates  to any  inter-state route shall be
\ndeemed to be an approved scheme unless lt has been published
\nwith  the  previous  approval  of  the\tCentral\t Government.
\nSection 68-E  enables  the  State  Transport-Undertaking  to
\ncancel or  modify any  scheme published\t under\t88.  68-D(3)
\nafter following\t the procedure\tlaid down  in sec.  68-C and
\nsec. 68-D  in respect  of  certain  matters,  such  as,\t the
\nincrease in  the number\t of vehicles or the number of trips,
\nchange in  the type of vehicles without reducing the sitting
\ncapacity, extension  of the  route or  area without reducing
\nthe frequency  of the  service, alteration of the time-table
\nwithout reducing  the frequency\t of the\t service. m  e State
\nTransport Undertaking  need not\t follow the  procedure\tlaid
\ndown in\t sec. 68-C and sec. 68-D if the previous approval of
\nthe State  Government is  obtained and\tif the scheme 18 one
\nrelating to  any route\tor area in respect of which the road
\ntransport services  are to  be run and operated by the State
\nTransport Undertaking  to the  complete exclusion  of  other
\npersons.  Section   68-E,  sub-sec.   2\t enables  the  State
\nGovernment, at\tany time,  if it  considers necessary in the
\npublic interest so to do, to modify a scheme published under
\nsec. 68-D(3)  after giving  an opportunity of being heard to
\nthe State  Transport Undertaking and any other person who in
\nthe opinion of the State Government is likely to be affected
\nby the\tproposed modification.\tSection 68-F(1)\t obliges the
\nRegional  Transport   Authority\t or   the  State   Transport
\nAuthority, as  the case\t may  be,  to  grant  to  the  State
\nTransport Undertaking  the necessary permits on its applying
\nfor the same in pursuance of an approved scheme. The permits
\nhave to\t be issued  notwithstanding anything to the contrary
\nin Chapter IV. Section 68-F(l-A) oblige
\n670<\/span>
\nthe State  Transport Authority\tor the Regional Transport as
\nthe case  may be,  to issue  temporary permits\tto the State
\nTransport Undertaking,\tfor the\t period intervening  between
\nthe date  of publication  of the  scheme  and  the  date  of
\npublication of\tthe approved  or modified  scheme. The State
\nTransport Authority  or\t the  Regional\tTransport  Authority
\nmust, however,\tbe satisfied  that it  is necessary  in\t the
\npublic interest to increase the number of vehicles operating
\nin such area or route or portion thereof previously.
\nSection 68-F(1-C)  enables the\tState Transport Authority or
\nthe Regional  Transport Authority,  as the  case may  be, to
\ngrant  to   private  operators\t temporary  permits   if  no
\napplication for a temporary permit is made under sub-sec.(1-
\nA) in  respect of  the area  or\t route\tor  portion  thereof
\nspecified in  the scheme.  Section 68-F(1-D)  prohibits\t the
\ngrant or  renewal of a permit, save as otherwise provided in
\nsub-sec.(1-A)\tand    sub-sec.(1-C)   during\tthe   period
\nintervening between  the date  of publication  of any scheme
\nand the\t date or  publication of  the approved\tor  modified
\nscheme. Sub-sec.  2 of sec. 68-F enables the State Transport
\nAuthority the  Regional Transport  Authority as the case may
\nbe, for\t the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme
\nin respect  of a  notified area or notified route, to refuse
\nto entertain any application for the grant or renewal of any
\npermit or  reject any such application as may be pending, to
\ncancel any  existing permit,  and to modify the terms of any
\nexisting permit\t so as\tto  render  the\t permit\t ineffective
\nbeyond a  specified date,  to reduce  the number of vehicles
\nauthorised to  be used\tunder the  permit and to curtail the
\narea or route covered by the permit in 80 far as such permit
\nrelates to  the notified area or notified route. Section 68-
\nFF prohibits  the grant\t of any\t permit except in accordance
\nwith a\tprovision of  the scheme,  once a  scheme  has\tbeen
\npublished under\t sec.68-D(3) in respect of any notified area
\nor notified route. This is an important provision and we may
\nextract it here. It is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  68-FF
\n\t  where a  scheme  has\tbeen  published\t under\tsub-
\n\t  section 3  of sec.68-D  in respect of any notified
\n\t  area\tor   notified  route,  the  State  Transport
\n\t  Authority or\tthe Regional Transport Authority, as
\n\t  the case may be, shall not grant any permit except
\n\t  in accordance with the provisions of the scheme.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
There is,  however, a  proviso which  enables the grant of a
\ntemporary permit  to any  person in respect of such notified
\narea
\n671<\/span>
\nor notified  route if  no application  for a permit has been
\nmade by\t A the State Transport Undertaking. Section 68-G and
\n68-H prescribe\tthe principles\tand  method  of\t determining
\ncompensation and  its payment  to the  holders\tof  existing
\npermits which  cancelled or  modified. Section 68-I empowers
\nthe State  Government to  make\trules  for  the\t purpose  of
\ncarrying into  effect the  provisions of  the Chapter and in
\nparticular in  accordance with the various matters specified
\nin sub-sec. 2
\n     It is  thus seen  that while  the provisions of Chapter
\nIV-A are  devised to  override the  provisions of Chapter IV
\nand it\tis expressly  so enacted,  the provisions of Chapter
\nIVA are\t clear and  complete regarding the manner and effect
\nof the\ttake over  of the  operation  or    road  transport
\nservice by  the State  Transport Undertaking  in relation to
\nany area or route or portion thereof. While on the one hand,
\nthe paramount  consideration is\t the  public  interest,\t the
\ninterest of  the existing  operators are  sufficiently well-
\ntaken  care   of  and  such  slight  inconveniences  to\t the
\ntravelling public  as may  be inevitable  are sought  to  be
\nreduced to  a minimum.\tTo begin  with the  State  Transport
\nUndertaking must  think it  necessary in the public interest
\nto provide  efficient,\tadequate,  economical  and  properly
\ncoordinated State Transport services in relation to any area
\nor route  or portion  thereof, to  the exclusion complete or
\npartial of  other persons  or otherwise. This is the initial
\nrequirement for\t the initiation\t of a  scheme. Even  at that
\nstage, the  State Transport Undertaking is required to apply
\nits mind to the question of complete or partial exclusion of
\nother persons or otherwise from operating transport services
\nin relation  to any  area or route or portion thereof. There
\nis ample  and sufficient  guidance to  the  State  Transport
\nUndertaking  for   the\tapplication   of  mind.\t  Thereafter
\nobjections to  the scheme  are to  be  heard.  All  existing
\noperators providing  transport facilities  along or near the
\narea or\t the route  proposed to be covered by the scheme are
\nto be  heard. Therefore, it will be open to any operator who
\nis likely  to be  affected by  total or partial exclusion to
\nobject to  the scheme  and suggest  such modification as may
\nprotect him.  A hearing\t is required  to be  given  and\t the
\nhearing is  no empty  formality as  decisions of  this Court
\nhave shown.  Even that\tis not\tan end\tof the\tmatter. Even
\nthereafter, the\t State Transport  Undertaking as well as the
\nState Government  are empowered\t to cancel  or\t modify\t the
\nscheme under  sec. 68-E.  In other  words, if  in the actual
\nworking of the approved scheme any difficulty or hardship is
\nexperienced by\tthe public  or\tfor  that  matter  by  other
\noperators, such\t difficulty  may  be  removed  and  hardship
\nrelieved by appropriate action under
\n672<\/span>
\nsection 68-E.  both sec.68F  and the  proviso  to  sec.68-FF
\nprovide for  the  issue\t of  temporary\tpermits\t to  private
\noperators if the State Transport Undertaking has not applied
\nfor a  permit temporary\t or otherwise  in respect  of scheme
\npublished or  approved. We  thus find  chat at\tevery stage,
\nabundant provision is made to protect the public interest as
\nalso the  interest of  private operators  by  providing\t for
\nconsideration and  reconsideration of  any problems that may
\narise out of a proposed, published or approved scheme. It is
\nin that context, we must construe sec.68-C and sec.68HH both
\nof which provisions have been extracted by us earlier.\n<\/p>\n
     A careful and diligent perusal of sec.68-C, sec.68-D(3)
\nand  sec.68FF\tin  the\t light\tof  the\t definition  of\t the
\nexpression  ‘route’   in  sec.2(28-A)  appears\tto  make  it
\nmanifestly clear  that once  a\tscheme\tis  published  under
\nsec.68-D in  relation  to  any\tarea  or  route\t or  portion
\nthereof, whether  to the  exclusion, complete  or partial of
\nother persons  or otherwise,  no person other than the State
\nTransport Undertaking  may operate  on the  notified area or
\nnotified route\texcept as  provided in\tthe scheme itself. A
\nnecessary consequence of these provisions is that no private
\noperator can operate his vehicle on any part or por-ion of a
\nnotified area  or notified  route unless authorised so to do
\nby the terms of the scheme itself. He may not operate on any
\npart or\t portion of  the notified  route or area on the mere
\nground that  the permit as originally granted to him covered
\nthe notified  route or\tarea. We  are not  impressed by\t the
\nvarious submissions  made on  behalf of\t the  appellants  by
\ntheir several  counsel. The foremost argument was that based
\non the\tgreat inconvenience  which  may\t be  caused  to\t the
\ntravelling public  if a\t passenger is not allowed to travel,
\nsay, straight from A to on a stage carriage, to ply which on
\nthe route  A to\t a person  X has  a permit, merely because a
\npart of the route from to somewhere between the points A and
\nis part\t of a  notified route. The answer to the question is
\nthat this  is a\t factor which will necessarily be taken into
\nconsideration by  the  State  Transport\t Undertaking  before
\npublishing the\tscheme under  sec.68-C,\t by  the  Government
\nunder sec.68-D when considering the objections to the scheme
\nand thereafter\teither by the State Transport Undertaking or
\nby the Government when the inconveniences experienced by the
\ntravelling public  are brought\tto their notice. me question
\nis one\tof weighing  in the balance the advantages conferred
\non the\tpublic by  the\tnationalisation\t of  the  route\t C-D
\nagainst the inconveniences suffered by the public wanting to
\ntravel straight\t from A to B. On the other hand, it is quite
\nwell known that under The guise of
\n673<\/span>
\nthe so\tcalled ‘corridor  restrictions’ permits\t over longer
\nroutes which  cover shorter notified routes or ‘overlapping’
\nparts  of   notified  routes   are    more  often  than\t not
\nmisutilised since  it is   next\t nigh impossible  to keep  a
\nproper check  at every\tpoint of  the route. It is also well
\nknown that  often times\t permits for  plying stage carriages
\nfrom a point a short distance beyond one terminus to a point
\na short distance beyond another terminus of a notified route
\nhave been  applied for\tand granted subject to the so-called
\ncorridor restrictions,\twhich are but more ruses or traps to
\nobtain permits\tand to frustrate the scheme. If indeed there
\nis any\tneed  for  protecting  the  travelling\tpublic\tfrom
\ninconvenience as suggested by the learned counsel we have no
\ndoubt  that   the  State   Transport  Undertaking   and\t the
\nGovernment will\t make a\t sufficient provision  in the scheme
\nitself to avoid inconvenience being caused to the travelling
\npublic.\n<\/p>\n
     One  of   the  submissions\t urged\twas  that  a  route,
\naccording to  definition, meant\t a line\t drawn\tbetween\t two
\nterminii and therefore, route AB cannot be the same route as
\nCD even\t if C  & D  happened to be two points on the highway
\nfrom A\tto B.  It was  argued that if route AB was different
\nfrom route CD, the nationalisation of route CD had no effect
\nwhatsoever on  the permits  to ply  stage carriages  on\t the
\nroute AB. This argument is specious and is only to be stated
\nto be  rejected. In  fact, whatever argument was open to the
\nlearned counsel\t on the\t basis of  the decision of the Privy
\nCouncil in Kelani Valley Motor Transit Co. Ltd.. v. Colombo-
\nRatnapura Omnibus Co. Ltd. (supra) is no longer open to them
\nin view\t of the definition of route inserted as sec. 2(28-A)
\nof the Motor Vehicles Act by the Amending Act of 1969. We do
\nnot have  the slightest\t doubt\tthat  route  AB\t covers\t and
\nincludes every\tpart of\t the particular\t highway from  A  to
\ntraversed by  the Motor\t vehicle  along\t the  route.  It  is
\nimpossible to  accept the  argument that  only the  terminii
\nhave to\t be looked at and the rest of the highway ignored in
\norder to  discover a  route for\t the purposes  of the  Motor
\nVehicles Act.  Equally without substance is the plea that if
\nan operator  does not  pick up\tor set\tdown  any  passenger
\nbetween the  two points\t of the\t common\t sector he cannot be
\nsaid to be plying a state carriage between these two points.
\nThe argument  is entirely devoid of substance for the simple
\nreason that  the operator  does charge the passenger for the
\ndistance travelled  along  the\thighway\t between  these\t two
\npoints also.  Another argument\twhich was advanced and which
\nis also lacking in substance is that a complete exclusion of
\nprivate operators  from the common sector would be violative
\nof Art.\t 14   and that it would be ultra vires sec. 68-D. We
\nare unable  to see  how\t  either Art.14\t or sec.68-D  of the
\nMotor Vehicles Act hit a scheme
\n674<\/span>
\nwhich provides\tfor complete  exclusion of private operators
\nfrom the  whole or any part of the notified area. Almost all
\nthese submissions  have\t been  considered  and\tmet  by\t the
\nmajority judgment in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation
\nv. Mysore  Revenue Appellate  Tribunal,<\/a> [1975] 1 S.C.R. 615,
\nto which we shall presently refer.\n<\/p>\n
     In C.P.C.\tMotor Service, Mysore v. The State of Mysore
\nAnr.,<\/a>  [1962]  supp.  1\t S.C.R.\t 717,  the  impugned  scheme
\nprovided for  taking over certain stage carriage services to
\nthe complete exclusion of private operators. It provided:\n<\/p>\n
\t  The  State   Transport  Undertaking  will  operate
\n\t  services  to\t the  complete\texclusion  of  other
\n\t  persons (1)  on all  the  notified  inter-district
\n\t  routes except\t in regard to the portions of inter-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  district routes lying outside the limits of Mysore
\n\t  District, and\t also (ii) over the entire length of
\n\t  each of  the inter-district route lying within the
\n\t  limits of Mysore District
\nCertain persons\t who possessed stage carriage permits to ply
\nvehicles on  inter-district  and  inter-state  routes  which
\noverlapped the\tMysore District\t challenged the\t scheme\t and
\ncontended that\ttheir permits  should not be affected merely
\nbecause parts of the routes were within the Mysore District.
\nTheir contention  was that  since the terminii of the routes
\non which  they were  operating vehicles\t were outside Mysore
\nDistrict it  could not\tproperly be said that any portion of
\ntheir route had been taken over merely because it lay within
\nthe Mysore  District. It was held by this court that a route
\nmeant not  only the  notional line  but also the actual road
\nover which  the motor  vehicles ran  and in view of the fact
\nthat the  scheme reserved  all the  routes within the Mysore
\nDistrict to  the State\tTransport  Undertaking,\t no  private
\noperator could\tbe allowed  to ply his vehicle on the common
\nsector which  was within  the  Mysore  District.  His  route
\nautomatically steel  pro tanto cut down to only that portion
\nwhich lay outside the Mysore District.\n<\/p>\n
     Even before the introduction of the definition of route
\nin sec. 2(28-A)) by the 1969 amendment, in  Nilakanth Prasad
\nand Others  v. State  of Bihar (supra), the court understood
\nthe  word   ‘route’  on\t practically  the  same\t lines\twith
\nreference to sec. 68-C and sec. 68-F. The court said,
\n\t  This means that even in those cases  where the
\n675<\/span>
\n\t  notified route  and the route applied for run over
\n\t  a  common sector, the curtailment by virtue of the
\n\t  notified scheme would be by excluding that portion
\n\t  of the  route or,  in other words, the road common
\n\t  to both.  The distinction  between “route”  as the
\n\t  physical  track   disappears\tin  the\t working  of
\n\t  Chapter IVA,\tbecause you cannot curtail the route
\n\t  without curtailing  a portion of the road, and the
\n\t  ruling of  the Court\tto which  we have  referred,
\n\t  would\t also  show  that  even\t if  the  route\t was
\n\t  different, the  area at  least would\tbe the same.
\n\t  The ruling  of the  Judicial Committee  cannot  be
\n\t  made\tapplicable   to\t the   Motor  Vehicles\tAct,
\n\t  particularly Chapter\tIV-A, where the intention is
\n\t  to  exclude\tprivate\t operators  completely\tfrom
\n\t  running over\tcertain sectors\t or routes vested in
\n\t  State\t Transport  Undertakings.  In  our  opinion,
\n\t  there fore, the appellants were rightly held to be
\n\t  disentitled to  run over  those portions  of their
\n\t  routes which\twere notified as part of the scheme.
\n\t  Those portions  cannot be  said  to  be  different
\n\t  routes, but  must be\tregarded as  portions of the
\n\t  routes of  the private  operators from  which\t the
\n\t  private operators  stood  excluded  under  s.\t 68-
\n\t  F(2)(c)(iii) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     In Ram  Sanehi Singh  v.  Bihar  State  Road  Transport
\nCorporation &  ors. (supra),  there was\t a  slight  note  of
\ndiscordance. The appellant there possessed a permit to ply a
\nstage carriage on a rout-e which had a common sector of five
\nmiles of a notified route. On the examination of the scheme,
\nthe Court  found that  there was  nothing  in  the  notified
\nscheme\twhich  completely  excluded  the  other\t holders  of
\npermits from  plying their  stage carriages  in pursuance of
\npermits issued\tto them\t from terminii\tnot on points on the
\nnotified  route.   It  was  held  that\tmerely\tbecause\t the
\nappellant had  to run  his vehicle on a part of the notified
\nroute without  the right  to pick  up passengers  or to drop
\nthem, his  permit to  the extent  of the overlapping portion
\ncould be  said to  be ineffective.  We are  afraid that this
\ndecision must  be confined  to its  own facts.\tThe  learned
\njudges did  not notice\tthe earlier decision of the court in
\nCPC Motor  Services, Mysore  v. The State of Mysore and Anr.
\n(supra) and  Neelkanth Prasad and Ors. v. The State of Bihar
\n(supra). They  also failed  to notice  that while  sec. 68-C
\nprovides for  preparation and  publication of  scheme giving
\nparticulars of\tthe services proposed to be run and operated
\nby the\tState Transport\t Undertaking in relation to any area
\nor route to the exclusion, complete or
\n676<\/span>
\npartial, of  other persons  or otherwise. Section 68-FF also
\ndebars\tthe  State  Transport  Authority  and  the  Regional
\nTransport Authority  from  granting  any  permit  except  in
\naccordance with the provisions of the scheme.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t S.   Abdul  Khader  Saheb  v.\tThe  Mysore  Revenue
\nAppellate Tribunal,   Bangalore &  Ors.<\/a> [1973] 1 S.C.C. 357,
\nthe court  approved the\t view of the High Court of Karnataka
\nthat,
\n\t  “when once  on a  route or  a portion of the route
\n\t  there has  been total\t exclusion of  operation  of
\n\t  stage carriage  services by  operators other\tthan
\n\t  the State  Transport Undertaking  by virtue  of  a
\n\t  clause in  an\t approved  scheme,  the\t authorities
\n\t  granting permit  under Chapter  IV  of  the  Motor
\n\t  Vehicles  Act,  should  refrain  from\t granting  a
\n\t  permit contrary to the scheme.”\n<\/p>\n
In Mysore  State Road  Transport Corporation  v. The  Mysore
\nRevenue Appellate  Tribunal<\/a> [1975]  1 S.C.R.  493,  Beg\t and
\nChandrachud JJ,\t departing from\t the views  generally  taken
\ntill then,  took  the  view  that  a  scheme  which  totally
\nexcluded inter-state  private operators\t from using any part
\nof a notified route must make the intention clear. There was
\na difference  between area  and\t route.\t Route\tdenoted\t the
\nabstract conception  of line  of travel. A difference in the
\ntwo terminii  of  two  routes  would  make  the\t two  routes
\ndifferent even\tif there  was overlapping. Unless the scheme
\nclearly indicated  that the  user  of  any  portion  of\t the
\nhighway covered by the notified route was prohibited, inter-
\nstate operators\t could not  be debarred\t from  plying  their
\nvehicles over  the overlapping part of the inter-state route
\nmerely because\tof the\tphysical fact  of the overlapping of
\nthe two\t routes. The  learned  judges  did  not\t notice\t the
\nearlier decisions  of the  court in  C.P.C.  Motor  Service,
\nMysore v.  The State  of Mysore\t & Anr.<\/a>\t (supra)  and  Abdul
\nKhader v.  The Mysore  Revenue\t Appellate Tribunal<\/a> (supra).
\nNilkanth Prasad’s  (supra) case\t was noticed  but  by-passed
\nwith  the  observation\t“whatever  may\tbe  said  about\t the
\ncorrectness of the decision” etc.
\n     In Mysore\tState Road  Transport Corporation  v. Mysore
\nState Transport\t Appellate Tribunal<\/a> [1975] 1 S.C.R. 615, all
\nthe earlier cases were noticed and lt was held,
\n\t  It is,  therefore apparent  that where  a  private
\n\t  transport owner makes an application to operate on
\n\t  a route,  which overlaps  even a  portion  of\t the
\n\t  notified
\n677<\/span>
\n\t  route i.e.  where the\t part of  the highway  to be
\n\t  used by A the private transport owner traverses on
\n\t  a line  on the same highway on the notified route,
\n\t  then that application has to be considered only in
\n\t  the light  of\t the  scheme  as  notified.  If\t any
\n\t  conditions are  placed then  those conditions have
\n\t  to  be   fulfilled  and   if\tthere\tis  a  total
\n\t  prohibition then the application must be rejected.
\n\t  …………………………………..
\n\t  ………….\n<\/p>\n
\t  This Court has consistently taken the view that if
\n\t  there is  prohibition to  operate  on\t a  notified
\n\t  route or  routes no licences can be granted to any
\n\t  private  operator   whose   route   traversed\t  or
\n\t  overlapped any  part or  whole  of  that  notified
\n\t  route. The  intersection of the notified route may
\n\t  not,\tin   our  view,\t  amount  to  traversing  or
\n\t  overlapping  the  route  because  the\t prohibition
\n\t  imposed applied to a whole or part of the route on
\n\t  the highway  on the  same line  of the  route.  An
\n\t  intersection cannot  be said\tto be traversing the
\n\t  same line, as it cuts across it.\n<\/p>\n
The learned  judges expressly dissented from the decision of
\nBeg  and   Chandrachud,\t JJ.   in  Mysore   State  Transport
\nCorporation v.\tMysore Revenue\tAppellate Tribunal<\/a>  [1975] 1
\nS.C.R. 493,  and approved  the decisions  of  the  court  in
\nNilkanth Prasad’s  case\t (supra)  and  Abdul  Khader’s\tcase
\n(supra). We  agree with\t the view  taken by  this  court  in
\nMysore State  Road Transport  Corporation v.  Mysore Revenue
\nAppellate Tribunal<\/a> [1975] 1 S.C.R. 615, and dissent from the
\nview taken’  in Mysore\tState Road  Transport Corporation v.
\nThe Mysore  Revenue Appellate Tribunal<\/a> [1975] S.C.R. 493. We
\nhowever wish  to introduce a note of caution. When preparing
\nand publishing\tthe scheme  under s.  68-C and\tapproving or
\nmodifying the  scheme under  s.68-D care  must be  taken  to
\nprotect, as  far as possible, the interest of the travelling
\npublic who  could in  the past\ttravel\tfrom  one  point  to
\nanother without having to change from one service to another
\nenroute. This  can always  be done  by\tappropriate  clauses
\nexempting  operators  already  having  permits\tover  common
\nsector from  the scheme\t and  by  incorporating\t appropriate
\nconditional clauses  in the  scheme to\tenable them  to\t ply
\ntheir vehicles\tover common  sectors without  picking up  or
\nsetting down  passengers on  the common\t sectors. If  such a
\ncourse is  not feasible\t the State Legislature may intervene
\nand provide  some other alternative as was done by the Uttar
\nPradesh Legislature by the enactment of the
\n678<\/span>
\nUttar Pradesh  Act No.\t27 of  76 by  sec. 5  of  which\t the
\ncompetent authority  could authorise  the holder of a permit
\nof a  stage carriage  to ply his stage carriage on a portion
\nof  a\tnotified  route\t subject  to  terms  and  conditions
\nincluding payment of licence fee. There may be other methods
\nof  not\t inconveniencing  through  passengers  but  that  is
\nentirely a  matter for\tthe  State  Legislature,  the  State
\nGovernment and\tthe State  Transport Undertaking.  But we do
\nwish to\t emphasise that\t good and  sufficient care  must  be
\ntaken to  see that  the\t travelling  public  is\t not  to  be
\nneedlessly inconvenienced.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri R.K.\tGarg urged that the provisions of Chapter IV
\nand Chapter  IV-A must\tbe reconciled in such a manner as to
\nallow  permit\tholders\t to   ply  their   stage   carriages
\nnotwithstanding that  parts of their route are also parts of
\nnotified routes.  We fail  to understand the argument having
\nregard to  the express\tlegislative pronouncement in s. 68-B
\nthat the provisions of Chapter IV-A and the rules and orders
\nmade thereunder\t shall have  effect notwithstanding anything
\ninconsistent therewith contained in Chapter IV of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     In one of the cases it was argued before us that though
\nthe scheme framed by the Uttar Pradesh Transport Undertaking
\nprohibited the\tplying of  private stage  carriages  on\t the
\nnotified part  of an  inter-state route\t within the State of
\nUttar Pradesh,\ta later\t Madhya Pradesh\t Scheme published by
\nthe Madhya  Pradesh State  Transport Undertaking pursuant to
\nan  inter-state\t  agreement  allowed  the  plying  of  stage
\ncarriages by  private operators\t on that  part of  the route
\nwhich was  in Uttar  Pradesh also. The argument was that the
\nlater scheme superseded the earlier scheme and therefore the
\noperators could ply their vehicles on the Uttar Pradesh part
\nof the\troute also.  We are  unable to\tsee how\t the  scheme
\nframed by  the Uttar Pradesh State Transport Undertaking can
\nbe superseded  by the  scheme framed  by the  Madhya Pradesh
\nState Transport Undertaking.\n<\/p>\n
     We are  therefore unable to see any merit in any of the
\nCivil Appeals  since none  of the  schemes placed  before us
\ncontain any  saving clause  in favour of operators plying or
\nwanting to  ply stage  carriages on  common sectors.  On the
\nother hand we found that invariably there is a clause to the
\nfollowing  effect   :  “No   person  other  than  the  State
\nGovernment Undertaking\twill be\t permitted to  provide\troad
\ntransport services on the routes specified in paragraph 2 or
\nany part thereof”. In the face of a provision of this nature
\nin the scheme totally prohibiting
\n679<\/span>
\nprivate operators  from plying stage carriages on a whole or
\npart A\tof the notified routes, it is futile to contend that
\nany of the appellants can claim to ply their vehicles on the
\nnotified routes\t or part  of the  notified routes.  All\t the
\nappeals and Special Leave Petitions are therefore dismissed,
\nwith costs  which we  quantify at  Rs.2,500 in each. All the
\ninterim orders of this court which enabled the appellants to
\noperate\t their\tvehicles  on  notified\troutes\tor  part  of
\nnotified routes or which enabled the appellants to apply for
\nand obtain  permits to\t80 operate,  with or without the so-
\ncalled corridor restrictions are hereby vacated.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t    Appeals and Petitions dismissed.\n680<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 17 October, 1985 Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 319, 1985 SCR (3) 661 Author: O C Reddy Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J), Venkataramiah, E.S. (J), Eradi, V. Balakrishna (J), Misra, R.B. (J), Khalid, V. (J) PETITIONER: ADARSH TRAVELS BUS […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-153710","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAdarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 17 October, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 17 October, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1985-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-07T10:18:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"39 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 17 October, 1985\",\"datePublished\":\"1985-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-07T10:18:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985\"},\"wordCount\":6240,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985\",\"name\":\"Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 17 October, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1985-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-07T10:18:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 17 October, 1985\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 17 October, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 17 October, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1985-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-07T10:18:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"39 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 17 October, 1985","datePublished":"1985-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-07T10:18:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985"},"wordCount":6240,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985","name":"Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 17 October, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1985-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-07T10:18:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-travels-bus-service-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-17-october-1985#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 17 October, 1985"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153710","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=153710"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153710\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153710"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153710"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153710"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}