{"id":2319,"date":"1974-05-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-05-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974"},"modified":"2016-06-04T05:16:12","modified_gmt":"2016-06-03T23:46:12","slug":"mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974","title":{"rendered":"Mysore State Road Transport … vs The Mysore Revenue Appellate … on 17 May, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mysore State Road Transport … vs The Mysore Revenue Appellate … on 17 May, 1974<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 1940, \t\t 1975 SCR (1) 615<\/div>\n
Author: P J Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, P. Jaganmohan<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE MYSORE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT17\/05\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\nBENCH:\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR 1940\t\t  1975 SCR  (1) 615\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1984 SC 953\t (2)\n RF\t    1986 SC 319\t (1,7,13)\n R\t    1992 SC1888\t (9)\n\n\nACT:\nMotor  Vehicles Act, Sec. 68C-Inter-state operators  whether\nprohibited from plying vehicles on intrastate routes-Meaning\nof   route  and\t area--Interpretation\tof   scheme-Complete\nexclusion whether can be implied.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nCertain\t Intra-state routes were nationalised under  Chapter\nIV-A  of the Motor Vehicles Act.  There were three  approved\nschemes\t of nationalisation namely Anekal  Scheme,  Gulbarga\nScheme and the Bangalore Scheme.  Parts of these Intra-state\nroutes\toverlapped  inter-state routes over,  which  private\ntransporters  were granted permits to ply their vehicles  on\ncondition that they will neither pick up nor drop passengers\non any overlapping parts of routes.\nThe  preamble  to Anekal Scheme and Gulbarge Scheme  do\t not\nstate that the scheme is of a total exclusion.\tThe preamble\nto  the\t Bangalore Scheme, however,  mentions  the  complete\nexclusion  of all other operators from certain routes.\t The\nAnekal\tScheme gives the termini with  intermediate  points.\nThe  names  of\tthe  Inter-State  operators  have  not\tbeen\nmentioned  in any of these three Schemes.  The schemes\tshow\nthat  the term \"route\" is used in each scheme  for  services\nbetween two termini.\n'The appellant Corporation object to the permits granted  to\nthe  Inter-State  Transporters\tin  so\tfar  as\t they  cover\noverlapping  portions of Intra-state routes on the basis  of\nthree schemes.\nDismissing the appeal,\nHELD  :\t (1)  There  can be  no\t doubt\tthat  the  appellant\ncorporation has power to frame a scheme under Section  68(C)\nof  the\t Motor Vehicles Act, Providing that  Road  Transport\nServices in general or in any particular class, in  relation\nto any area or route or portion thereof should be run and by\nthe  State Transport Undertaking whether to  the  exclusion,\ncomplete  or  partial of other persons or  otherwise.\tThis\npower  includes the power to exclude even inter-state  motor\noperators  altogether  from a part of  any  notified  route.\n[494G]\n(2)Section  68C however requires as a condition\t precedent\nto any exclusion of private operators that the scheme should\ngive  particulars of the nature of services proposed  to  be\nrendered, the area of route proposed to be covered and\tsuch\nother particulars as may be prescribed.\t Each scheme has  to\nbe  Published  in the official Gazette.\t  A  scheme  finally\nemerging  after\t opportunities are given for  objections  by\npersons interested. [495B-C]\n(3)A  scheme  which totally excludes  inter-state  private\noperators  from sing any part of a notified route must\tmake\nthe intention to do that clear.\t The Act makes a distinction\nbetween notification of an area and of a route.\t An area may\ncover  a  number  of  routes.  A route\tis  not\t merely\t the\nphysical surface covered by the highway to be traversed. but\nconnotes  the  abstract\t concept  of  line  of\ttravel.\t   A\ndifference in the two termini will make two routes different\neven if there is an overlapping surface. of the road  common\nto  two routes.\t Unless a scheme clearly indicates that\t the\nuser of every portion of a highway covered by an  intrastate\nnotified  \"route\"  so conceived is prohibited.\talso  to  an\ninter-state  motor vehicle operator, who really plies  on  a\ndifferent  route  inasmuch as his termini are  bound  to  be\ndifferent from those of an intrastate route, the  interstate\noperators  may not be completely debarred from the  user  of\nthe  overlapping  part\tof an  inter-state  route.   A\tmore\nphysical overlapping of the two is not enough to exclude the\nprivate inter-state operators by any necessary\timplication.\nSuch an exclusion must be made clear and unequivocal in\t the\nscheme. [496B.\tD. F-H]\n494\n(4).\t  The  rules  require  that existing  operators.  on\neach  route must be named and the numbers of their  vehicles\nmust  be given before they 'could be deemed to\tbe  excluded\nfrom any part of a route.  Unless their names are  mentioned\nthey  cannot  come forward to object  as  persons  affected.\n[497D-E].\n(5)  The  Inter-state operators were not meant to be  denied\nthe use of the overlapping portions of routes covered by the\nscheme.\t  Their names were not mentioned as required by\t the\nrules.\tThe Anekal and Gulbarga schemes did not even talk of\nthe  complete  exclusion. : The\t Bangalore  Scheme  mentions\ncomplete  exclusion  but  this exclusion  seems\t to  be,  in\nrespect of operators Providing services between the  terming\nmentioned  there and not merely using overlapping  portions,\nof  the\t notified  rules incidentally.\t No  explanation  is\nforthcoming  as to why names and the numbers of\t the  inter-\nstate transporters were not mentioned in the scheme.  [501C-\nF]\nNilkanth  Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar,<\/a> [1962]  1  S.C.R.\n728,  Kelani, Valley Motor Transit Co. v. Colombo  Ratnapura\nOmnibus\t Co.  [1946]  A.C. 338 and  Kondala  Rao  v.  Andhra\nPradesh\t State Road Transport Corporation, A.I.R.<\/a> 1961\tS.C.\n82, distinguished\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.  1755  to
\n1756 of 1969, 362 to 363 and 1918 to 1920 of 1970 and 490 to
\n492 of 1973.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t by Special leave from the Judgment and Order  dated
\nthe  10th October, 1968, 11th March, 1969, 24th March,\t1969
\nand 16th June, 1969 of the Mysore High Court in W.P. Nos.  3
\n322  and,  379\/ 66, W.P. Nos. 800, 1186,  1188,\t 1190  1191,
\n1228-31 1233\/69 and 3910, 3913, 3921, and 3932\/68, 1189\t and
\n1192\/69, 1234\/69, 20682070\/69 respectively and special leave
\npetitions: Nos. 2015 to 2112 and 2408 to 2412 of 1969.\tFrom
\nthe  Judgment and order dated 11th November, 1969  and\t16th
\nJune, 1969 of the Mysore High Court in W.P. Nos. 3908, 3912,
\n3923,  3925, 3926, 3230, 3933 and 3933\/ 68, and\t 2067,\t2078
\nand 2080-2082\/68.\n<\/p>\n
Shyamla\t    Pappu    and    Vineet    Kumar,\t for\t the
\nappellants\/Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
S.   S. Ganguli and H. K. Puri for respondents.
\nP.   K. Pillai for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
A.   G. Ratnaparkhi for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
S.   V. Gupte, M. R. V. Achar, M. Rangaswamy and B. P. Singh
\nfor respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Y.   S.\t Chitale,  M. Rangaswamy, M. R. V. Achar and  B.  P.
\nSingh for respondent.\n<\/p>\n
D. N. Mishra for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBEG,  J.-There\tare  twenty two\t appeals  by  Special  leave
\ntogether  with\tthirteen connected special  leave  petitions
\ninvolving a common  question of law for decision before\t us.
\nThis  question arises out of three approved  schemes,  which
\nmay  be\t called\t the  Anekal  Scheme  dated  15-4-1959,\t the
\nGulbarga  Scheme dated 18-2-1960, and the  Bangalore  Scheme
\ndated 7-6-1960, for the nationalisation under Chapter IVA of
\nth–  Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred  to  as
\n‘the  Act’), of transport services on certain  routes  lying
\nwithin the State of Mysore.  But, parts of these  intrastate
\nroutes\t overlap  inter-state  routes  over  which   private
\ntransporters were granted permits and then their renewals by
\nthe State Transport authorities to ply their vehicles.\t The
\nMysore
\n495<\/span>
\nState Road Transport Corporation objects to these permits in
\nso  far\t as they cover overlapping  portions  of  intrastate
\nroutes.\t  The  common question of law which  arises  may  be
\nformulated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Can  a  permit be granted to  an\t Inter-State
\n\t      Transport Operator for the whole of his  route
\n\t      despite  the  fact that a part  of  the  route
\n\t      overlaps\ta  part of  a  notified\t intra-State
\n\t      route” ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
There can be no doubt that the Mysore State Transport Under-
\ntaking has the power to frame a scheme under section 68C  of
\nChapter\t IVA of the Act, providing “in the  public  interest
\nthat  road transport services in general or  any  particular
\nclass  of  such\t service in relation to\t area  or  route  or
\nportion\t thereof  should be run and operated  by  the  State
\nTransport Undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or
\npartial,  of  other  persons  or  otherwise”.\tThis   power
\nincludes  the  power  to  exclude  even\t inter-state   motor
\noperators altogether from a part of any notified route. (See
\n:  Nilkanth Prasad & Ors.  Vs.\tState of Bihar(1),  Standard
\nMotor  Union  Pvt Ltd.\tVs.  State of Kerala  &\t Ors(2);  S.
\nAbdul Khader Saheb Vs.\tMysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal  &
\nOrs.(3)\t The Transport authorities have no power to  deviate
\nfrom or modify the terms of approved schemes which have\t the
\nforce of law.  They can issue or otherwise deal with permits
\nonly in accordance with the provisions of the schemes  which
\nmay  be\t either\t partial  or  total  exclusion\tof   private
\noperators  from\t notified  routes.   We\t have  to  determine
\nwhether\t the  schemes  before us are  of  partial  or  total
\nexclusion.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 68C  requires,\t as a  condition  precedent  to\t any
\nexclusion   of\t private  operators  under   a\t scheme\t  of
\nnationalisation from “any area or route or portion thereof”,
\nthat  the scheme should give “particulars of the  nature  of
\nservices proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed
\nto be covered and such other particulars respecting  thereto
\nas  may be prescribed”.\t Each scheme has to be published  in
\nthe official Gazette and also “in such manner, as the  State
\nGovt.\tmay  direct”.\tA  scheme  finally  emerges,   after
\nopportunities  given  under  Section  68D  of  the  Act\t for
\nobjections  by\tpersons interested  in\tproviding  transport
\nfacilities as left as by local and police authorities within
\nthe  area  or upon the routes proposed to be  covered  by  a
\nscheme,\t as  an\t approved  scheme  in  which  the   original
\nproposals may or may not have been modified.  Each scheme so
\napproved  can be either cancelled or modified by  the  State
\nTransport  Undertaking\tunder  Section 68E  of\tthe  Act  in
\naccordance with the procedure laid down by Sections 68C\t and
\n68D of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
The power of the State Transport Undertaking to prohibit the
\nuse  of any portion of a route by Inter-state operators\t has
\nnot  been  questioned before us.  Nevertheless,\t it  may  be
\npertinent  to  point out that this Court thus  indicated  in
\nSaghir Ahmed & Anr. v. State of U.P. &Ors.,(4) the nature of
\nthe right of the public to use public roads (at page 717) :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “But  the\t right of the public  to  use  motor
\n\t      vehicles on the
\n\t      public road cannot, in any sense, be  regarded
\n\t      as a right
\n\t      (1)   [1962](1) Suppl.  S.C.R. 728.
\n\t      (2)   [1969](1) S.C.R. 464.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)   AIR 1973 S.C. 534.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (4)   [1955] 1 S.C.R. 707, 717.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      496<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      created by the Motor Vehicles Act.  The  right
\n\t      exists  anterior\tto any legislation  on\tthis
\n\t      subject as an incident of public rights over a
\n\t      highway.\t  The\tState  only   controls\t and
\n\t      regulates\t it  for  the  purpose\tof  ensuring
\n\t      safety,  peace, health and good morals of\t the
\n\t      public.  Once the position is accepted that  a
\n\t      member of the public is entitled to ply mother
\n\t      vehicles on the public road as an incident  of
\n\t      his  right  of  passage over  a  highway,\t the
\n\t      question is really immaterial whether he plies
\n\t      a\t vehicle for pleasure or pastime or for\t the
\n\t      purpose of trade and business.  The nature  of
\n\t      the right in respect of the highway is not  in
\n\t      any  way affected thereby and we cannot  agree
\n\t      with  the\t learned Advocate-General  that\t the
\n\t      user of a public road for purposes of trade is
\n\t      an  extraordinary\t or  special  use  of\t‘the
\n\t      highway  which  can  be  acquired\t only  under
\n\t      special sanction from the State”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is enough for the purpose of the cases before us to\tnote
\nthe distinction between the right to use a road which may be
\na  part\t of a notified “route” and the right  to  ply  motor
\nvehicles  on hire upon a ,.route” for which a permit has  to
\nbe obtained under the Act.  Notification of a route under  a
\nscheme prevents issue of permits contrary to the scheme\t for
\nthe  route.  Assuming for the purposes of the  cases  before
\nus, that the State Transport Undertaking can totally exclude
\ninterstate  private  operators\tfrom using  any\t part  of  a
\nnotified  route,  a scheme which has that  effect  must,  at
\nleast,\tmake  the intention to do that clear before  it\t can
\nprevent\t the  exercise of another wise legal  right  to\t ply
\nmotor  vehicles\t for  hire on a public\thighway\t subject  to
\nregulation of this kind of user by permits issues under\t the
\nAct.  The question is, in our opinion, one of interpretation
\nof the scheme formulated in each case.\tBefore\tinterpreting
\neach of the three schemes mentioned above, we will refer  to
\nthe relevant provisions which have a bearing on questions of
\ninterpretation\tof the schemes and of the particulars  given
\ntherein.\n<\/p>\n
As  each  scheme  of nationalisation is to  be\tprepared  in
\npublic\tinterest, Section 68C requires the  State  Transport
\nUndertaking  to give particulars “of the nature of  services
\nproposed  to  be  rendered by it”.  A  distinction  is\tmade
\nbetween\t notification  of an “area” and of  a  “route”.\t  An
\narea,  which  has to be notified under Section 2(i)  of\t the
\nAct,  may cover a number of routes.  A route, as defined  by
\nthe  insertion\tof  (28A) made by the Act  56  of  1969,  in
\nSection\t 2 of be Act, is “a line of travel  which  specifies
\nthe  high-way  which  may be traversed by  a  motor  vehicle
\nbetween\t one terminus and another”.  Whatever may have\tbeen
\nthe  meaning of the word “route” before this  insertion,  it
\nappears to us that, after this clarification, a route is not
\nmerely\tthe physical surface covered by the high-way  to  be
\ntraversed,  but the abstract concept of “a line of  travel”,
\nwhich  connects\t one terminus with another,  has  also\tbeen
\nintroduced into the legal definition of a ,.route”. The\t two
\nconcepts  are  now so interlined that a route would  not  be
\nproperly  indicated by merely specifying the  highway  which
\nmay  be\t traversed without giving its two terming.   And,  a
\ndifference in-the two terming will make two routes different
\neven  if there is an overlapping surface of the road  common
\nto routes.  In other words, the two
\n497<\/span>
\nterming\t are  an essential part of the concept of  a  route.
\nNotification   of  routes  takes  place\t for   purposes\t  of
\nnationalisation\t of transport services on the  routes.\t The
\nroutes are not nationalised as physical surfaces of notified
\nareas  reserved\t for use by State owned vehicles  only,\t but
\nwhat  is nationalised is the provision of certain  transport
\nservices on those routes.\n<\/p>\n
Unless\ta  scheme clearly indicates that the user  of  every
\nportion of a highway covered by an intrastate notified route
\nis prohibited also to an inter-state motor vehicle operator,
\nwho  really  plies on a different ” route” inasmuch  as\t its
\ntermini\t are  bound  to\t be  different\tfrom  those  of\t  an
\nintrastate  route,  the\t inter-state  operator\tmay  not  be
\ncompletely debarred from the user of the overlapping part of
\nan intrastate route.  A mere physical overlapping of the two
\nmay  not  be  enough  to  excluder  the\t private  interstate
\noperators by any necessary implication.\t If the intention is
\nto exclude such user by an operator of another route a\tpart
\nof which over-laps a notified route, that intention must  be
\nmade,  clear and unequivocal by the scheme in order to\thave
\nthat effect.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 68C  also mentions other particulars  of  a  scheme
\nwhich  may  be\tprescribed.   These  particulars  have\tbeen
\nprescribed in the State of Mysore by means of rules notified
\nin the Mysore Gazette dated 27-2-1958.\tThe relevant portion
\nof the first rule reads as follows
\n\t       “1.  Every  scheme  or  modified\t scheme\t for
\n\t      passenger transport service shall contain\t the
\n\t      following particulars :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      1.    The area in relation to which the scheme
\n\t      is proposed.\n<\/p>\n
\t      2.    Whether  City\/Town service\tor  moffusil
\n\t      service.\n<\/p>\n
\t      3.    The route or routes (with their starting
\n\t      points,  termini,\t intermediate  stations\t and
\n\t      route   length)  in  which  the\tState\tRoad
\n\t      Transport\t Undertaking proposes  to  introduce
\n\t      its  services  to\t the  exclusion\t of  private
\n\t      operators.\n<\/p>\n
\t      4.    The\t number of existing stage  carriages
\n\t      on  each route with their number of trips\t and
\n\t      the names of their operators.\n<\/p>\n
\t      5.    The maximum and minimum number of  stage
\n\t      carriages proposed to be operated by the State
\n\t      Transport\t Undertaking  to  the  exclusion  of
\n\t      private  operators in relation to\t each  route
\n\t      and  the\ttype and seating  capacity  of\teach
\n\t      vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
\t      6.    The maximum number of trips proposed  to
\n\t      be performed on each route.\n<\/p>\n
\t      7.    Number  of vehicles intended to be\tkept
\n\t      in  reserve  to maintain the  service  and  to
\n\t      provide for special occasions”.\n<\/p>\n
With  regard  to  the above mentioned  particulars,  it\t was
\nsubmitted, on behalf of the inter-state operators, that sub-
\nrules 3 and 4 of rule 1 set out above, require that existing
\noperators  on  each route must be named and the\t numbers  of
\ntheir vehicles must be given before they could be deemed  to
\nbe  excluded  from any part of a route.\t It was\t also  urged
\nthat, unless the scheme indicates which persons are  treated
\nas providing a service or plying on the notified route, they
\ncould  not be expected to come forward to object as  persons
\naffected.  Hence,
\n498<\/span>
\nit  is submitted, if the State Transport Undertaking  itself
\ntreated\t them  as persons unaffected by\t nationalisation  of
\ntransport   services  on  certain  intrastate  routes,\t its
\nintention would appear to be to leave untouched or  preserve
\nthe rights of inter-state, operators who were already  there
\nmerely\tto use parts of notified routes.  The  argument\t was
\nthat the inter-state operators were, by a clear implication,
\npermitted  by  each  scheme  to\t use  overlapping  parts  of
\nnotified  intrastate routes.  They were, it was urged,\tthus
\nme-ant\tto be, excluded from the purview of the\t prohibition
\nin each scheme.\n<\/p>\n
In  some  of  the cases before\tus  the\t Regional  Transport
\nOfficer had himself either granted or renewed the permits of
\nthe  inter-state  operators.   In  other  cases,  where\t the
\nRegional Transport Officer had rejected the applications  of
\nthe  interstate\t operators  concerned,\tthe  operators\t had
\nsucceeded   in\tobtaining  permits  from  the  final   state
\nAppellate  Authority  functioning under the Act.   The\tHigh
\nCourt  had, in every case, upheld the grants of\t permits  to
\nthe  inter-state operators.  It had found the schemes to  be
\nambiguous.   But,  it  overruled  the  contention  that\t the
\nschemes\t warranted total prohibition or exclusion of  inter-
\nstate;\toperators  on overlapping parts of  notified  routes
\nmainly\ton  the ground that such a contention could  not  be
\nadvanced  for  the  first time before it in  the  course  of
\narguments.\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t also contended that, the Manager of  the  appellant
\nCorporation  had  impliedly admitted before,  the  Transport
\nauthorities  that  interstate  operators  were\tnot  totally
\nprohibited  by\tany scheme from using  overlapping  portions
\nbecause he confined his objection to the sufficiency of\t the
\nnumber\tof buses serving on the overlapping parts of  routes
\nand  had  not relied upon any parts of the schemes  for\t any
\nalleged-  total\t prohibition of the use of  the\t overlapping
\nparts of notified routes by the inter-state operators.
\nIt  may be mentioned here that a condition had been  imposed
\nby the final Appellate Transport Authority upon each  inter-
\nstate  operator\t that  he  will neither\t pick  up  nor\tdrop
\npassengers  on any part of the overlapping  notified  route.
\nTherefore, one of the questions argued before us is  whether
\nthe  Transport authorities had any power or jurisdiction  to
\ngrant permits to interstate, operators even by annexing such
\nconditions  so that overlapping portions of notified  routes
\ncould be merely used by the inter-state operators  concerned
\nfor taking their stage carriages and passengers through them
\nbut  not to provide services for passengers to or  from\t any
\nplace falling upon any portions of the notified routes.\t  It
\nwas submitted, on behalf of the appellant Corporation,\tthat
\nall  that  the Transport authorities could do  was  to\tgive
\neffect\tto  the\t provisions of each scheme  but\t not  to  do
\nanything which may be a modification of the scheme.
\nAlthough,  the actions of the Transport authorities and\t the
\nconduct\t or a concession of the Manager of  the\t Corporation
\nmay  be\t relevant  in considering whether a  scheme  was  so
\nframed\tas  to\tclearly\t convey\t to  the  officials  of\t the
\nCorporation and to the, Transport authorities concerned that
\nit was a scheme of total prohibition extending to even\tuser
\nof any portion of an overlapping notified route by an inter-
\nstate  operator, yet, the real question to be considered  is
\nwhether
\n499<\/span>
\nthe  scheme itself in each case, on the contents of  it\t and
\nthe  language employed by the framers of it, warrants  total
\nexclusion  of the kind contended for before us on behalf  of
\nthe Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\ttrue that this Court does not  ordinarily  interfere
\nwith  the discretion of the High Court to refuse to allow  a
\nquestion to be raised for the first time in arguments before
\nit.  But, it is pointed out that the question raised  before
\nthe  High Court and argued before us is one of\tjurisdiction
\nor power of the Transport authorities which goes to the root
\nof the case so that the High Court should have permitted  it
\nto  be raised and decided it.  We find that the\t High  Court
\ndid,  albeit  indirectly, consider the question\t by  holding
\nthat  the  schemes were ambiguous and did not rule  out\t the
\ninterpretation\t that  they  were  not\tschemes\t  of   total
\nprohibition  as\t the schemes could and should have  done  if
\nthat  was intended.  The High Court had also correctly\tmade
\nobservations  indicating  that, where such an  intention  of
\ntotal  prohibition  of\teven the case of a  portion  of\t the
\nnotified   route   is  present,\t the   intention   must\t  be
\ncommunicated in clear enough language so as not to leave the
\ntransport  authorities in any doubt as to what they  are  to
\nenforce.  And, as we have granted special leave on this very
\nquestion  and have heard arguments on it, we  will  consider
\nthe question briefly and not dispose of the cases before  us
\nsimply\ton  the ground that the question  should  have\tbeen
\nraised\tat  an\tearlier. stage on behalf  of  the  appellant
\nCorporation.   We will, therefore, examine the\tcontents  of
\neach of the three approved schemes in which the preamble and
\nclauses 3 to 7 have a special bearing on the question  under
\nconsideration.\n<\/p>\n
In  the Anekal Scheme, the preamble does not state that\t the
\nscheme\tis  of\ttotal exclusion.  Clauses 3  to\t 17  of\t the
\napproved scheme are stated as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“3.The route or routs (with their start-   As in statement
\ning points, termini, intermediate\t  1 appended
\nstations  and route (length) in
\nwhich the State Transport Under-\n<\/p>\n
taking will    introduce its services\nthe exclusion of private operators.\n4. The number of existing stage carria-\t     As in statement\nges on each route with the number of\t      2 appended\n<\/pre>\n
trips and the names of their operators.\n<\/p>\n
5. The maximum and minimum number
\nof stage carriages to be operated by
\nthe State Road Transport Undertak-\n<\/p>\n
ing to the exclusion of private opera-\n<\/p>\n
tors in relation to each route and the
\ntype and seating capacity of each
\nvehicle.\n<\/p>\n
5(a)
\nMaximum\t and  minimum  number  of  stage  carriages  to\t  be
\noperated; As in Statement 1 appended
\n5(b)
\nType and Seating capacity of each vehicle
\nSemi-saloon,  single dickers.  The seating capacity of\teach
\nvehicle is 36 to 45 seat.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The maximum number of trips to\t As in statement 1
\nbe performed on each route.\t\t   appended\n<\/p>\n
7.   The  number of vehicles to be\t    25 per  sent  of
\nkept in\t reserve to maintain the services    the operating
\n and to provide for special occasions.\t       fleet”.
\nIn the Gulbarga scheme, the preamble states that approval is
\ngiven,\tto  the originally published  proposals\t subject  to
\ncertain modifications, One of the modifications is-that\t the
\nwords “or any portion thereof’
\n500<\/span>
\nwherever they appear in column 2 of the, statement  appended
\nto  the\t scheme published by the General  Manager  shall  be
\ndeleted.  The, relevant clauses 3 to 7 read as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “3.  The route or routes (with their  starting
\n\t      points,  termini,\t intermediate  stations\t and
\n\t      route   length)  in  which  the\tState\tRoad
\n\t      Transport\t Undertaking  shall  introduce\t its
\n\t      services,\t  to   the  exclusion\tof   private
\n\t      operators.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      As in statement appended.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      4.  The number of existing stage carriages  on
\n\t      each  route with the number of trips  and\t the
\n\t      names of their operators.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      5.    The maximum and minimum number of  stage
\n\t      carriages\t to  be operated by the\t State\tRoad
\n\t      Transport\t Undertaking  to  the  exclusion  of
\n\t      private  operators in relation to\t each  route
\n\t      and  the\ttype  and sating  capacity  of\teach
\n\t      vehicle.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      6.    The\t maximum  number  of  trips  to\t  be
\n\t      performed on each route.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      7.    The number of vehicles to be kept and to
\n\t      maintain\tthe services to provide for  special
\n\t      occasions.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Twenty-five percent of the operating fleet
\n\t      (4)  (a)\tAt present, only the Mysore  Govern-
\n\t      ment  Road Transport Department  is  operating
\n\t      service  on  these routes, and the  number  of
\n\t      existing\tstage  carriages and the  number  of
\n\t      trips are as in statement appended.
\n\t      5(a)  Maximum  and  minimum, number  of  stage
\n\t      carriages\t to  be operated  As   in  statement
\n\t      appended.,
\n\t      5(b)  Type   and\tseating\t capacity  of\teach
\n\t      vehicle.\tSemi-saloon,  single-deckers.\t The
\n\t      seating  capacity of each vehicle is 26 to  55
\n\t      seats.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      6 (a) As in statement appended.
\n\t      7(a)  Twenty-five\t per-cent of  the  operating
\n\t      fleet”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The preamble to the Bangalore scheme  mentions
\n\t      the  following modifications of  the  original
\n\t      proposals:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   that the passenger transport services on
\n\t      the routes appearing at sl.  Nos.\t 1 to 22 and
\n\t      24,  25,\t26,  27 anti  53  of  the  statement
\n\t      appended\tincluding services between  any\t two
\n\t      places  therein should be run and operated  by
\n\t      the   State  Transport  Undertaking   to\t the
\n\t      complete exclusion of other operators\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   Subject   to   (a)\tabove,\t the   State
\n\t      Transport Undertaking should operate  services
\n\t      on  the  remaining  routes  appearing  in\t the
\n\t      statement\t appended between the two  specified
\n\t      terminals\t only, to the complete exclusion  of
\n\t      all  other  operators,  excluding\t the  inter-
\n\t      mediate routes;”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The relevant clauses 3 to 7 are given here  as
\n\t      follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The    route    or    routes    (with    their
\n\t      startingpoints, termini, intermediate stations
\n\t      and  route  length) in which  the\t State\tRoad
\n\t      Transport\t Undertaking  shall  introduce\t its
\n\t      services\t to   the   exclusion\tof   private
\n\t      operators.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)  The passenger transport services  on\t the
\n\t      routes appearing at Sl. Nos.  1 to 22, and 24,
\n\t      25,  26,\t27,  39\t and  53  of  the  statement
\n\t      appended\tincluding services between  any\t two
\n\t      places  therein should be run and operated  by
\n\t      the   State  Transport  Undertaking   to\t the
\n\t      complete exclusion of other operators;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
501<\/span><\/p>\n
(b)  Subject  to (a) above, the State Transport\t Undertaking
\nshould\toperate services on the remaining ,routes  appearing
\nin   the  statement  appended  between\tthe  two   specified
\nterminals  only\t to  the complete  exclusion  of  all  other
\noperators, excluding the intermediate routes;\n<\/p>\n
4. The number of existing stage\t    At present only the
\n  carriages on each route with\t    Mysore Government Road
\n  the number of trips and the\t    Transport Department is
\n  names of their operators\t    operating services on
\n\t\t\t\t    these routes and in the
\n\t\t\t\t    number of trips are as
\n\t\t\t\t    in statement appended.\n<\/p>\n
5. (a) The maximum and minimum\t   (a) Maximum and minimum
\n   number of stage carriages to\t    of stage carriages to be
\n   be operated by the State Road    operated; As in the
\n  Transport Undertaking to the\t    statement appended.
\n  exclusion of private operators    (b) Type and seating
\n  in relation to each route and\t     capacity of each veh-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t     cile.\n<\/p>\n
  (b) the type and seating capacity  Semi-saloon single-\n<\/p>\n
     of each vehicle\t\t     dickers, the seating\n\t\t\t\t     capacity of each\n\t\t\t\t     vehicle is 26 to 35\n\t\t\t\t      seats.\n<\/pre>\n
6. The maxims number of trips\t As in statement appended
\n   to be performed on each route\n<\/p>\n
7. The number of vehicles to be\t    Twenty-five per-cent of
\n   kept in reserve to maintain\t    the operating fleet.”
\n   the services and to provide
\n  for special occasions.\n<\/p>\n
It  may be mentioned here that clauses 3 and 4 of the  three
\nschemes are apparently intended to carry out the  provisions
\nof  sub-rules  3 and 4 of the  State  Transport\t Undertaking
\nMysore\tState  Rules, 1958, Set out above.   In\t the  Anekal
\nscheme,\t the  appended statement mentioned in clause  3\t (in
\npurported  compliance of sub rule 3) gives the termini\twith
\nintermediate  points thereby indicating that  the  exclusive
\nservice\t on  each route is intended to be  one\twhich  takes
\nplace  only  between  the  given there and  not\t as  a\tmere
\nincident  of  service  between other  termini.\t The  second
\nstatement mentioned in clause 4 (in purported compliance  of
\nsub-rule  4) gives the number of the existing sup  carriages
\nand  the  names of their operators  serving  the  prohibited
\nroutes\tindicated in terms of their termini.  Ile  strongest
\npoint  of the inter-state operators is that their names\t are
\nnot mentioned in the second appended statement.\t Hence, they
\ncould  not either object as persons whose rights were  meant
\nto be affected or who could be compensated under Section 68G
\nafter  necessary  modification\tor  cancellation  of   their
\npermits for the overlapping portions.  We, therefore.  think
\nthat   the  contention\tthat  inter-state   operators\twere
\napparently  not\t meant\tto be denied the  mere\tuse  of\t the
\noverlapping  portions  of routes covered by this  scheme  is
\nwell  supported.   In  fact, this  is  the  more  reasonable
\ninference.   Similarly, the appended statements of the\tGul-
\nbarga  scheme  show  that the term “route” is  used  in\t the
\nscheme\tfor  services between two termini and  that  persons
\nmerely using portions of the route while travelling  between
\nother  termini\tare not totally prohibited the user  of\t the
\noverlapping route.  Lastly, as regards the Bangalore scheme,
\nthe  case  of  the appellant Corporation  may,\tseem  better
\ninasmuch  as  the  words  used there  are  :  “the  complete
\nexclusion of all
\n502<\/span>
\nother  operators excluding the intermediate  routes”.\tBut,
\neven  here,  the exclusion appears to be only  of  operators
\nproviding  services between the termini mentioned there\t and
\nnot merely using overlapping portions of the notified routes
\nincidentally.\tIf the exclusion of those using\t overlapping
\nportions  of  the  surface of the,  highway  common  to\t two
\ndifferent routes was also really intended, they should\thave
\nbeen  named  in the appended statement and  the\t numbers  of
\ntheir\tstage\tcarriages  should  have\t been\tgiven.\t  No
\nexplanation  is forthcoming for this  omission.\t  Therefore,
\nthe  interpretation of the three schemes advanced on  behalf
\nof  the\t inter-state operators is more reasonable.   In\t any
\ncase,  if the intention was really to exclude even the\tuser
\nof  the\t overlapping portions of notified routes  by  inter-
\nstate  operators,  we  do not see why  the  State  Transport
\nUndertaking should have waited for so long and not  modified
\nthe scheme, as provided by Section 58E of the Act, and\tmade
\nits intention clear instead of allowing litigation over this
\nissue for such a long time.\n<\/p>\n
On  behalf  of\tthe appellants, reliance was  sought  to  be
\nplaced\tstrongly  upon\tthe meaning  assigned  to  the\tterm
\n“route’\t by  a\tDivision Bench of  this\t Court\tin  Nilkanth
\nPrasad’s  case (supra), where the view of the Privy  Council
\nin  Kelani  Valley Motor Transit Co.  v.  Colombo  Ratnapura
\nOmnibus\t Co.,(1)  was distinguished on the ground  that\t the
\ncontext\t of  the ordinances before, the, Privy\tCouncil\t for
\ninterpretation\tindicated  that\t a  “route”  stood  for\t “an
\nabstract conception of a line of travel between one terminus
\nand  another, and to be something distinct from the  highway
\ntraversed”.   Nilkanth\tPrasad’s case  (supra)\twas  decided
\nbefore the insertion of the definition in Section 2(28A)  of
\nthe  Act before us.  In it reliance was placed upon  Kondala
\nRao  v. Andhra Pradesh State Road  Transport  Corporation<\/a>(2)
\nwhere the real question considered by this Court was whether
\na route could also be an area.\tIt was observed in  Nilkanth
\nPrasad’s case (supra) (at p. 737-738)
\n\t      “The   distinction  between  “route”  as\t the
\n\t      notional line and “road” as the physical track
\n\t      disappears  in  the  working  of\tChap.\tIVA,
\n\t      because  you cannot curtail the route  without
\n\t      curtaining  a  portion of the  road,  and\t the
\n\t      ruling of the Court to which we have referred,
\n\t      would  also  show that even if the  route\t was
\n\t      different,  the  area at least  would  be\t the
\n\t      same.   The ruling of the\t Judicial  Committee
\n\t      cannot   be  made\t applicable  to\t the   Motor
\n\t      Vehicles\tAct, particularly Chap.\t IVA,  where
\n\t      the intention is to exclude private  operators
\n\t      completely  from running over certain  sectors
\n\t      or   routes   vested   in\t  State\t   Transport
\n\t      Undertakings.  In our opinion, therefore.\t the
\n\t      appellants were rightly held to be disentitled
\n\t      to  run  over those portions of  their  routes
\n\t      which were notified as part of the scheme”.
\n\t      On  the  other hand, learned Counsel  for\t the
\n\t      inter-state operators relied strongly on H. C.
\n\t      Narayanappa  & Ors. v. The State of  Mysore  &
\n\t      Ors.,<\/a>(3)\twhere  a  Constitution\tBench  of  5
\n\t      Judges of this Court
\n\t      (1) [1946] A.C. 338.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)   AIR 1961 S.C. 82.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (3) [1960] (3) S.C. R. 742.\n<\/p>\n
\t      503<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      interpreted  the very scheme dated  13-1-1959-
\n\t      relating,\t to the Anekal area which is one  of
\n\t      the  three schemes for  interpretation  before
\n\t      us.  It was held there (at p. 746)
\n\t      “Statement  I  sets  out\tthe  description  of
\n\t      fourteen\t routes\t with\ttheir\tintermediate
\n\t      points,  route length, number of buses  to  be
\n\t      operated and the maximum number of trips to be
\n\t      performed\t on each route”.  By column  4\t“the
\n\t      number  of  existing stage carriages  on\teach
\n\t      route  with the number of trips and the  names
\n\t      of  their\t operators”  are  described  “as  in
\n\t      statement\t 2 appended”.  Statement 2 sets\t out
\n\t      the names and places of business of  fifty-six
\n\t      operators\t together with the, routes  operated
\n\t      and  the\tnumbers of the stage  carriages\t and
\n\t      trips made by those operators.  In the  Anekal
\n\t      area,  there are thirty-one routes, which\t are
\n\t      served by stage carriages operated by  private
\n\t      operators, and by the approval of the  scheme,
\n\t      only  fourteen of those routes are covered  by
\n\t      the scheme”.\n<\/p>\n
Hence,\tit was urged that the term “route’ was used  in\t the
\nschemes\t under\tconsideration with reference  to  a  service
\nrendered   to  passengers  between  certain  termini.\t Its
\nnotification  did  not, it is urged, ipso facto,  signify  a
\nblanket-like  interdict\t against the user of any  and  every
\nportion\t of  a\troute  conceived of  as\t a  prohibited\tarea
\nreserved  for  the use of State owned carriages\t only  which
\nprivate\t operators could not encroach upon or  invade.\t The
\nAct  itself  gives  power  to  nationalise  motor  transport
\nservices upon and not the Surfaces of public highways.
\nWhatever  may be said about the correctness of the  decision
\nof  this  Court\t in Nilkanth Prasad’s case  (supra)  in\t the
\ncontext of the scheme before this Court for consideration in
\nthat case and the provisions of the Act as they stood  then,
\nwe  do\tnot think that the ratio decidendi of that  case  is
\napplicable here.  Upon the contents of the schemes before us
\nfor interpretation we find that only operators named therein
\nor  those  who seek to provide “services”  upon\t the  routes
\nmentioned  in  the schemes,. in the sense  that\t they  carry
\npassengers  travelling from one place. to  another  situated
\nonly  upon  the notified routes, could be  totally  excluded
\nfrom using the highways which the notified routes cover.  We
\nthink  that  conditions were rightly imposed  by  the  final
\nTransport  Appellate Authority on the permits of  interstate
\noperators to bring out what it understood the scheme to mean
\nin each case.\n<\/p>\n
The  result  is\t that we do not\t see  sufficient  reason  to
\ninterfere with the view taken by the High Court and  dismiss
\nthese appeals and the special leave petitions.\tThe  parties
\nwill bear their own costs in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
P.H.P.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
-LI 77S-P.  CI\/75
\n504<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mysore State Road Transport … vs The Mysore Revenue Appellate … on 17 May, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 1940, 1975 SCR (1) 615 Author: P J Reddy Bench: Reddy, P. Jaganmohan PETITIONER: MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. RESPONDENT: THE MYSORE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT17\/05\/1974 BENCH: […]<\/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-2319","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMysore State Road Transport ... vs The Mysore Revenue Appellate ... on 17 May, 1974 - 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\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mysore State Road Transport ... vs The Mysore Revenue Appellate ... on 17 May, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974\" \/>\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=\"1974-05-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-03T23:46:12+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=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mysore State Road Transport … vs The Mysore Revenue Appellate … on 17 May, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-05-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-03T23:46:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974\"},\"wordCount\":4799,\"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\\\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974\",\"name\":\"Mysore State Road Transport ... vs The Mysore Revenue Appellate ... on 17 May, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-05-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-03T23:46:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mysore State Road Transport … vs The Mysore Revenue Appellate … on 17 May, 1974\"}]},{\"@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":"Mysore State Road Transport ... vs The Mysore Revenue Appellate ... on 17 May, 1974 - 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\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mysore State Road Transport ... vs The Mysore Revenue Appellate ... on 17 May, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-05-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-03T23:46:12+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mysore State Road Transport … vs The Mysore Revenue Appellate … on 17 May, 1974","datePublished":"1974-05-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-03T23:46:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974"},"wordCount":4799,"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\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974","name":"Mysore State Road Transport ... vs The Mysore Revenue Appellate ... on 17 May, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-05-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-03T23:46:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-state-road-transport-vs-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-on-17-may-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mysore State Road Transport … vs The Mysore Revenue Appellate … on 17 May, 1974"}]},{"@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\/2319","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=2319"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2319\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2319"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2319"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2319"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}