Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8
PETITIONER:
C. P. C. MOTOR SERVICE, MYSORE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF MYSORE AND ANOTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
01/12/1961
BENCH:
HIDAYATULLAH, M.
BENCH:
HIDAYATULLAH, M.
GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.
CITATION:
1966 AIR 1661 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 717
CITATOR INFO :
R 1969 SC 273 (5)
RF 1976 SC1731 (4)
RF 1986 SC 319 (8,10,12)
ACT:
Stage Carriage-State Transport Undertaking-
Scheme-Validity-Routes notified under scheme-
Overlap between notified route and route left to
private operators-Effect-"Route", meaning of-Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939), ss. 680, 68F(2)
(c) (iii).
HEADNOTE:
Under a scheme for taking over certain stage
carriage services to the complete exclusion of
private operators, which was approved and notified
by the State of Mysore under the provisions of Ch.
IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it was
provided, inter alia: "The State Transport
Undertaking will operate services to the complete
exclusion of other persons (i) on all the notified
inter-district routes except in regard to the
portions of inter-district routes Lying outside
the limits of Mysore District, and also (ii) over
the entire length of each of the inter-district
routes Lying within the limits of Mysore
District." The appellants who were running stage
carriage omnibuses of certain routes, some of
which were inter-district and inter-State,
challenged the validity of the scheme on the
ground, inter alia, that between the routes which
were taken over and some of the inter-district and
inter-State routes which were left to the private
operators, there was an overlap in the Mysore
District, and that those routes which were not
taken over including the portion of the route
Lying within the Mysore District should not be
affected by the scheme, because "route" meant a
notional line running between two termini and
following a distinct course.
^
Held, that the scheme of the Motor Vehicles
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8
Act, 1939, is that the word "route" meant not only
the notional line but also the actual road over
which the omnibuses run. Under the Act the route
or area stand for the road on which the omnibuses
run or portions thereof.
Kondala Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation, A. I. R. 1961 S. C. 82,
relied on.
Kelani Valley Motor Transit Co., Ltd. v.
Colombo Ratnapura Omnibus Co., Ltd. [1946] A. C.
338, explained and distinguished.
In the present case, in view of the fact that
the scheme reserved all the routes within the
Mysore District to the State Transport
Undertaking, the private operators would not be
able to ply their omnibuses on that sector and
even those
718
routes which were inter-district open to them
would stand pro tanto cut down to only that
portion which lay outside the Mysore District.
Nilkanth Prasad v. The State of Bihar, [1962]
Supp. 1 S. C. R. 717, followed.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals
No. 180 of 1961.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated January 30, 1961, of the Mysore High
Court, in Writ Petition No. 1326 of 1960.
S. T. Desai, B. R. L. Iyengar and K. P. Bhat,
for the Appellant.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Gopalakrishnan
and T. M. Sen, for the respondents.
1961. December 1. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
HIDAYATULLAH, J.-The appellants, C. P. C.
Motor Service, Mysore, question a scheme approved
and applied by the State of Mysore by its
Notification No. HD. 200/TMP/60 in Gazette
(Extraordinary) on November 10, 1960. They had
unsuccessfully moved the High Court under Art. 226
of Constitution, and the present appeal is filed
with the special leave of this Court.
The appellants were running stage carriage
omnibuses on 18 routes, and 14 such routes are
inter District. On September 21, 1960, the second
respondent, who is the General Manager of the
State Transport Undertaking, published a tentative
scheme for taking over stage carriage services
over 64 routes, which were shown in a schedule to
the Notification, to the complete exclusion of
private operators. The action was taken under
Chap. IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, inserted by
s. 62 of Act 100 of 1956. Objections were duly
filed by the appellants, which were heard by the
Chief Minister, who was the authority to hear the
objections under the Rules, and they were disposed
of by his order dated
719
November 7, 1960. The scheme was approved with
some modifications, and it was published along
with the order in the Notification, to which we
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8
have already referred. The appellants, in their
petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution,
raised many points before the High Court. The High
Court, by its judgment under appeal dated January
30, 1961, dismissed the petition. Some of the
grounds were considered in that judgment; but
others had already been disposed of in other
petitions, in which a common judgment was
delivered by the High Court also on the same day
in Writ Petition No. 75 of 1960. That order
concerned another scheme for the Hassan District
of Mysore State.
In the appeal before us, the scheme is
challenged on four grounds. Shortly stated, they
are, that the modified scheme is vague, indefinite
and contradictory and does not carry out the
orders of the Chief Minister; that there has been
non compliance with the mandatory requirements of
ss. 68C and 68E of the Motor Vehicles Act; that
the scheme is destructive of co-ordination, which
is the gist of efficient motor transport services;
and finally, that the routes on which the
appellants operated, were, in any event, not
affected by the monopoly on certain routes created
in favour of the State Transport Undertaking.
These contentions will be dealt with in detail by
us in this judgment, and need not be stated at
greater length at this stage.
Private operators in the Mysore State
including the appellants, plied their omnibuses on
three different kinds of routes. They were inter-
District, inter-District and inter-State. By the
scheme, the State Transport Undertaking had taken
over 64 routes, but the exclusion of the private
operators was only in the Mysore District. In the
approved scheme, this is stated in the following
words:
720
"(d) Whether the services are 1. The State Transport
to be operated by the Undertaking will ope-
State Transport Under- rate services to the
taking to the exclusion, complete exclusion
complete or partial, of of other persons(i)
other persons or other- on all the notified
wise. inter-district routes
except in regard to
the portions of inter-
district routes lying
outside the limits of
Mysore District, and
also (ii) over the en-
tire length of each of
the inter-district route
lying within the
limits of Mysore
District.
2. In so far as the noti-
fied routes are con-
cerned the State
Transport Undertak-
ing will operate with-
out prejudice to rights
of the existing valid
permit-holders for
operation of Stage
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8
Carriage Services on
the Inter-State routes
only".
In describing the routes in the appendix to the
scheme, these routes were shown with all the stops
between the termini, together with the length of
the routes in miles, the maximum number of
vehicles to be operated by the State Transport
Undertaking and by private operators, and the
maximum number of daily services (return trips) to
be provided in relation to each route by the State
Transport Undertaking and by the private
operators. The columns dealing with private
operators in respect of the maximum number of
vehicles as well as the maximum number of the
daily services were invariably shown as "Nil".
Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act permits the
taking over
721
of any route or area either wholly or partly by
the State Undertaking, and the action of the State
Government has not been challenged as either ultra
vires or invalid. This is due perhaps to the fact
that in a number of cases recently decided by this
Court, schemes of this type have been held to be
valid, and the provisions of Chap. IV-A, in view
of the amendments effected by the Constitution
(First Amendment) Act, 1951, in Art. 19(6), have
been held intra vires the State Legislatures.
Those cases are also referred to by the High Court
in the judgment dealing with the Hassan District
scheme.
The first question that has been raised is
that the scheme is vague, indefinite and
contradictory. The vagueness, it is said, arises
from the fact that though under s. 68C certain
particulars have to be mentioned, they have not
been so mentioned in the scheme. This point is
illustrated by referring to the columns in which
the routes of private operators have not been
shown; but it is stated by the respondents that on
the routes mentioned in the scheme, the private
operators have no omnibuses, nor any daily
services at all. This, in our opinion, is the
direct result of taking over of certain routes,
because if those routes are taken away, then the
private operators would not be running their
omnibuses on those routes, and the appropriate
entry would be as shown there, "Nil". The rest of
the particulars have been given in the scheme
itself, including the kind of vehicles which would
be run, and their seating capacity, equipment,
etc. No doubt, the fares and the timings have been
left out, and the State Transport Authority has
been given the power to fix them. But that is a
matter for the determination of the transport
authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is
too much to expect fares and timings to be
indicated in the scheme, because each route
requires elaborate enquiry for fixing the fares as
well as the timings of service. The scheme is
722
not required, under the law, to deal with these
matters, and we are satisfied that the omission of
these details from the scheme does not militate
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8
against it.
Similarly, the argument that the scheme is
destructive of co-ordination is not valid. No
doubt, the private operators cannot run in the
Mysore District, but can ply their omnibuses from
the border of the Mysore District on routes, which
were saved to them, and there is likelihood of
transhipment from State-owned buses to private
omnibuses at the border, where the routes operated
by the State Transport Undertaking and the private
operators bifurcate. The transhipment, by itself,
would not connote a lack of co-ordination. Under
s. 68C, the State Transport Undertaking may take
over whole routes or whole areas or part of the
routes or part of the areas and if the scheme
operates partially, some transhipment would
obviously be necessary, but co-ordination would
still exist, because where the State omnibuses
come to a halt, the private omnibuses would take
the passengers set down. In our opinion, these
grounds have no validity, in view of the partial
nationalisation of the routes involved in the
State.
Really, the main attack against the scheme is
that though the Chief Minister had upheld the
objection of the appellants in an earlier portion
of his order, the direction which he contemplated
giving was not effectuated, leading to a
contradiction between the order and the approved
scheme. The Chief Minister, in dealing with the
objection of the private operators, had observed
in his order as follows:
"The Private Operators contended that
exclusive operation by the Mysore Government
Road Transport Department on the proposed
notified routes might seriously affect them
on certain Inter-District routes as well as
Inter State routes. The State Transport
Undertaking
723
it was argued, had not proposed
nationalisation of certain Inter-District and
Inter-State routes lying outside the limits
of Mysore District, though a few of the
notified routes traverse portions of Inter-
State and Inter District routes. It was
contended by the Objectors that if the Mysore
Government Road Transport Department was to
operate certain notified routes to the
complete exclusion of other operators, it
would adversely affect the passenger
transport system on certain portions of
Inter-State and Inter-District routes which
are notified. There is much force in this
contention and accordingly, the Scheme is
directed to be suitably modified."
It was argued that the point which was made before
the Chief Minister was that between the routes
which were taken over and some of the inter-
District and inter-State routes which were left to
the private operators, there was an overlap in the
Mysore District, and that those routes which were
not taken over including the portion of the route
lying within the Mysore District should not be
held to be affected by the scheme. It was argued
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8
that the Chief Minister in his order quoted above,
accepted the contention, and gave directions for
the suitable modification of the scheme, but in
carrying out the modifications, the directions,
quoted above, were not included, and they excluded
the private operators from that portion of the
route lying within the District of Mysore, even
though that route was different from the route,
which had been taken over.
In our opinion, the error lies in not
properly reading the order of the Chief Minister.
In the sentence, "It was contended by the
Objectors that if the Mysore Government Road
Transport Department was to operate certain
notified routes to the complete exclusion of other
operators, it would adversely
724
affect the passenger transport system on certain
portions of inter-State and inter-District routes
which are not notified," the words "which are not
notified" qualify not the word "route" but the
word "portions". The direction which was given,
effectuates the later reading, which was really
meant and not the former, which is urged; because
the qualifying phrase "which are not notified" has
been unhappily put later. It is no doubt true that
the other reading is also open, and is more in
accord with a grammatical construction. Where two
constructions are open, it is proper to read the
order harmoniously with the directions, because it
could not have been intended that the Chief
Minister would express his opinion in one way, and
include a contradictory direction in another way.
Indeed, the intention was to take over routes or
parts of the routes lying in Mysore District and
to notify them as within the exclusive operation
of the State Transport Undertaking. The exclusive
operation of routes within the District meant that
no other omnibus belonging to a private operator
could run on that sector. The direction,
therefore, clearly said that the route left to the
private operators would be open to them beyond the
borders of the District, but there were excluded
from that portion of the route which lay within
the District. In Nilkanth Prasad v. State of
Bihar, in which we have delivered judgment today,
we have explained what is meant by a "route" and
’a portion of a route’, and we need not cover the
same ground. In our opinion, there is no
contradiction between the order of the Chief
Minister and the directions included by him in the
concluding part of his order. Indeed, the
directions carry out the order, if the order is to
be read in the manner indicated by us.
It was next contended that the inter-District
routes, which the appellants were operating, could
not be said to be affected by the scheme at
725
all, because "route" means a notional line running
between two termini and following a distinct
course. This meaning was given to the word "route"
by the Privy Council in a case from Ceylon
reported in Kelani Valley Motor Transit Co., Ltd.
v. Colombo Ratnapura Omnibus Co., Ltd. It is said
that the ruling applies in the present case where
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8
what is notified as for exclusive running by the
State Transport Undertaking is not a definite
portion of a route of a private operator but is a
different route altogether. This may be
illustrated by algebraic notations. If the route
of the private operator was ABPQR, AB lying within
the District of Mysore and PQR outside it, it is
submitted that a route ABCDE may overlap the other
route up to the point B but is not the same route,
and, therefore, cannot be said to be notified.
What is meant by a route in the Act has been
elaborately discussed by us in the other judgment
delivered to-day. The only difference between this
case and the other cases is that, whereas in the
latter, the notified route was only AB, here the
notified route is ABCDE.
The notification of the Government must be
read in two parts. The first is that part of the
notification referring to the whole of the route
which is taken over, and the second part is with
respect to the portion of the route lying within
the District of Mysore. The portion lying within
the District of Mysore has been notified
separately as within the exclusive operation of
the State Transport Undertaking. The natural
result of it is that private operators would not
be able to ply their omnibuses on that sector, and
by "route" is meant, as already stated, not only
the notional line but also the actual road over
which the omnibuses run. We have shown in the
other appeals that the scheme of the Ceylon
ordinance was different. There, the
726
word "route" was contracted with the word
"highway". In the Motor Vehicles Act, the words
used are "route or area", and it has been held by
this Court that these words mean the same thing:
Kondala Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation.
The scheme of the Act in s. 68F(2)(c)(iii)
also shows that the Regional Transport Authority,
in giving effect to the approved scheme, may
"curtail the area or route covered by the permit
in so far as such permit relates to the notified
area or notified route". This makes the route or
area stand for the road on which the omnibuses run
or portions thereof, and in view of the fact that
the scheme reserved all the routes within the
Mysore District to the State Transport Undertaking
even those routes which were inter-District open
to the private operators would stand pro tanto out
down to only that portion, which lies outside the
Mysore District. The result, therefore, is that no
distinction can be made between the notification
of a portion of the route of the private operators
lying within the Mysore District and the
notification of a different route, in which the
portion within the Mysore District is also
included. What we have said in the other case
applied equally here.
It was suggested during the argument that
there were certain routes which did not cover any
portion of the notified route but met that route
at certain point or points. Reverting to the
algebraic notations given above, it was said that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8
route APBQR would not cover any portion of the
notified route ABCDE, and must at least,
therefore, be outside the scheme. No such route,
however, was pointed out to us, and we need not
express any opinion on this part of the case or as
to what would happen, if such a route existed.
727
Lastly, it was contended that the minimum
number of trips and the minimum number of vehicles
to be put on the road with respect to any route
has not been indicated, and that this is not a
proper scheme, because a scheme must show how
comparatively more efficient service is to be
provided by the State Transport Undertaking. The
earlier Rules required a statement as to the
minimum and maximum number of vehicles to be put
on a route, as also the minimum and maximum trips.
It was, however, held by this court that a
departure from the minimum number would mean the
alteration of the scheme, necessitating the
observance of all the formalities for framing a
scheme. In view of this, the Rules were amended,
obviating the necessity of indicating the minimum
number. The Rule, as it now stands, has been
complied with, and there being no challenge to the
Rule as such, one cannot say that the scheme is
defective on this account.
The result is that this appeal must fail, and
is dismissed; but in the circumstances of the
case, we make no order about costs.
Appeal dismissed.
728