Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
P.V. RAMAMOHAN CHOWDHARY AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT18/02/1992
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
CITATION:
1992 AIR 888 1992 SCR (1) 830
1992 SCC (2) 235 JT 1992 (3) 377
1992 SCALE (1)410
ACT:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: Sections 68-C, 68-D and 68-E.
State Transport Undertaking-Nationalisation scheme-
Partial exemption from the operation of the scheme-Validity
of-Partial exclusion held not violative of Article 14.
Modification of Scheme-Powers of Government to modify
the scheme-Conditions necessary for amending the scheme
discussed.
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14.
HEADNOTE:
In exercise of its power under section 68-D of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 the Government of Andhra Pradesh approved
a draft scheme framed under section 68-C relating to the
route Anantapur to Dharamavaram via Mamillapalli. However,
exemption was granted to persons holding permit for the
routes namely (a) Kodikonda to Anantapur via Dharmavaram;
(b) Bukkapatnam to Anantapur via Dharmavaram; (c) Interstate
route Virechal to Dharmavaram via Anantapur; (d) Anantapur
to Puttaparti via Dharmavaram and the partial exemption of
these routes from the scheme was upheld by the Andhra
Pradesh High Court. Thereafter, the respondents filed a writ
petition in High Court for a direction for exemption from
the operation of the scheme, and the High Court held that
exclusion of the respondents was discriminatory,
Accordingly it directed the State Govt. to consider the
respondent’s case and pass appropriate orders to accord
exemption from the operation of the scheme. Against the
decision of the High Court the Andhra Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation filed an appeal in this Court.
It was contended on behalf of the respondents that since
the State Government exempted four routes from the operation
of the scheme they are entitled to parity and denial offends
their right to equality under Article 14 of the
Constitution.
831
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the
High Court, this Court.
HELD: 1. Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, whose
constitutional validity can no longer be questioned, gives
power to the State Transport Undertaking to exclude the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
private operators completely or partially from an area or
route or part thereof in the draft scheme. It gives
exclusive power to offer transport service in that area or
route or part thereof. [833H, 834A]
2. The statute itself gives power to the State to
exercise discretion for formulating a scheme for an area or
route or part thereof and necessarily has the effect of
excluding the existing or potential private operators from
the fields to render transport service in that partially
prohibited area etc. while retaining similar private
operators in other area, route or part thereof. The
exclusion completely or partially is allowable under the
statute itself and is writ large. The discretion need not
necessarily be discriminatory. Section 68-C left the choice
to the State Transport Undertaking and so discrimination in
that sense is discernible from the section which itself
authorises the State Transport Undertaking, based on factual
matrix, eliminate in its choice of a partial exclusion of
private operators in an area or route or part thereof.
Opportunity has been given to an affected party to file his
or their objections and of a right of hearing before the
State Govt. approved of the draft scheme and publication
thereof in the gazette. The exercise of discretion by the
State Transport Undertaking in its selective application of
partial prohibition is controlled and regulated by the
statute in Ss. 68-D and 68-E of the Act. [834B-D]
Ram Nath Verma v. State of Rajasthan, [1963] 2 S.C.R.
152. referred to.
3. Giving primacy to the contention of violation of
Article 14 would be fraught with insidious effect of
upsetting the very scheme itself since anyone of the
existing or potential operators would always contend that he
too is similarly situated with that of the exempted
operators of other area, route or part thereof and unequal
treatment has been meted out in the grant of permit to offer
transport service offending his right under Article 14.
[834H, 835A]
4. It is now settled law that even on a partial
overlapping approved
832
scheme private operators have been totally prohibited to
have corridor shelters and could no longer enter into the
frozen area, route or part thereof and obtain permit to
render transport service to the travelling public. When that
be so, the partial exclusion does not offend Article 14 of
the Constitution. [835-E]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3362 of
1979.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.1977 of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 3348 of 1975.
A.S. Nambiar and B. Parthasarthy for the Appellants.
T.V. S.N. Chari and G. Narasimhulu for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. RAMASWAMY,J. This appeal by special leave arises
against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court dated October 3, 1977 in Writ Petition
No. 3343/75. The Govt. in exercise of power under s. 68-D in
Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 approved a draft
scheme framed under s. 68-C through G.O.M.S. No. 753, Home
(Transport) Dept. dated June, 1975, Published in the gazette
on June 4, 1975, relating to the route Anantapur to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
Dharmavaram via Mamillappalli. The Scheme No. 82 of 1974 was
questioned in Writ Petition No. 3827/75 and the same was
upheld by a single Judge on September 30. 1975 and on appeal
in Writ Appeal No. 80 of 1975 dated November 14, 1975, the
Division Bench upheld the same. While approving the scheme
the routes, namely : (1) Kodikonda to Anantapur via
Dharmavaram, (2) Bukkapatnam to Anantapur via Dharmavaram,
(3) Interstate route Virechal to Dharmavaram via Anantapur,
(4) Anantapur to Puttaparti via Dharmavaram to the extent
indicated in the note thereunder were exempted from the
scheme. Thereby the partial exemption of these routes from
the approved scheme stood upheld. Thereafter the two
respondents filed the writ petition challenging the self
same scheme contending that the non-exemption of the routes
i.e. Kalyandrug to Pernapalli via Dharamavaram and
Anantapur to Perur via Dharmavaram offend Act, 14 of the
Constitution. The High Court upheld the contention and held
that their exclusion is discriminatory. Accordingly the High
Court directed that the case "worth
833
consideration in the case of exempted routes". The Govt. was
directed to consider their case and to pass appropriate
orders to accord exemption from the scheme. Questioning the
correctness of the judgment, this appeal has been filed.
Under s. 68-C, where the State Transport Undertaking is
of the opinion that for the purpose of providing an
efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated
road transport service, it is necessary in the public
interest that the road "transport services" in general or
any particular class of such service in relation to any area
or route or portion thereof should be run and operated by
the State Transport Undertaking, "Whether to the exclusion,
complete or partial", of other persons or otherwise, the
State Transport Undertaking may prepare a scheme giving
particulars of the nature of the service proposed to be
rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and such
other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed,
and shall cause every such scheme to be published in the
Official Gazette and also in such other manner as the
State Government may direct. The draft scheme accordingly
was prepared on the above routes and was published.
Objections had been filed. In exercise of the power under
sub-s. 2 of s. 68-D the State Govt. after considering the
objections and giving opportunity to the objectors and the
representatives and also of the State Transport Undertaking
approved the scheme and excluded the aforesaid four routes.
AS stated earlier, the scheme was upheld by the High Court
and became final. The question emerges whether the non-
exclusion of two transport operators, the respondents
herein, offends Act, 14.
The contention of Sri Narsamhulu, the learned counsel
for the operators, is that the State Govt. having exempted
four routes from the scheme, the respondents too are
entitled to parity of treatment and the denial offends their
right to equality guaranteed under Art.14 of the
Constitution. We find difficult to give our acceptance to
this contention. It is true, as disclosed in the counter
affidavit filed by the State Govt. in the writ petition,
before the High Court that inadequate transport facilities
prevailing on those four routes and density of the
population that need transport service by the private
operators induced the Govt. to give exemption and that the
respondents also may be situated in the similar
circumstances. But by the very language of s.68-C whose
constitutional validity can no longer be questioned, and was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
not in fact questioned, gives
834
power to the S.T.U. to exclude the private operators
completely or partially from an area or route or part
thereof in the draft scheme and given exclusive power to
offer transport service in that area or route or part
thereof. On approval the scheme has the effect of excluding
the private operators from the field. The statute itself
gives power to the State to exercise discretion for
formulating a scheme for an area or route or part thereof
and necessarily has the effect of excluding the existing or
potential private operators from the field to render
transport service in that partially prohibited area etc.
while retaining similar private operators in other area,
route or part thereof. The exclusion completely or partially
is allowable under the statute itself and is writ large. The
discretion need not necessarily be discriminatory. Sec. 68-C
left the choice to the S.T.U. and so discrimination in that
sense is discernible from s. 68C which itself authorises
the S.T.U., based on factual matrix, eliminate in its choice
of a partial exclusion of private operators in an area or
route or part thereof. Opportunity has been given to an
affected party to file his or their objections and of a
right of hearing before the State Govt. approved of the
draft scheme and publication thereof in the gazette. The
exercise of discretion by the S.T.U. in its selective
application of partial prohibition is controlled and
regulated by the statute in Ss. 68D and 68E of the Act. In
Ram Nath Verma v. State of Rajasthan, [1963] 2 SCR 152 at
160 one of the contentions raised was that out of five
routes which were partially overlapping, three routes have
been taken over. Permits of the existing objectors has been
cancelled with respect to the overlapping part of the routes
while in other two routes, the objectors were allowed to ply
even on the overlapping part but they had been forbidden to
pick up passengers on the overlapping part for a destination
within the overlapping part. This latter method was adopted
to make the permits ineffective for the overlapping part.
The contention of the aggrieved persons was that they were
discriminated. This Court held thus:
"We are of the opinion that there is no force in it.
Under s.68C, it is open to frame a scheme in which there is
a partial exclusion of private operators. Making the permits
ineffective for the overlapping part only amounts to partial
exclusion of the private operators from that route. In the
circumstances an order making the permit ineffective for the
overlapping part would be justified under s. 68C". Giving
primacy to the contention of violation of Art. 14 would be
fraught with insidious effects of upsetting the very scheme
itself, since anyone of the existing or potential
835
operators would always contend that he too is similarly
situated with that of the exempted operators of other area,
route or part thereof and unequal treatment has been meted
out in the grant of permit to offer transport service
offending his right under Art. 14. It is true that sub-s.2
of s68E, as stated by Shri Narsamhulu, that despite the
approval of the scheme under sub-s.2 of s. 68-D, the State
Govt. may, at any time, if it considers necessary in the
public interest so to do, modify any scheme published under
s. 3 of s. 68-D of the Act after following the procedure
prescribed therein. The exercise of that power would be de
hors the approval granted under sub.s.2 of s. 68-D of the
Act and published under sub-s.3 of s. 68-D. The conditions
precedent therein are the Govt. must objectively come to a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
finding that there exists necessity in public interest and
that the approved scheme needs modification and that the
Govt. considers that such necessity to be imperative to
modify the scheme. The Govt. thereafter should follow the
procedure prescribed under sub-s. 2 of s. 68-E as if it is a
new scheme and pass appropriate orders in that regard. That
too it would be only either on the initiative of the S.T.U.
or on an application or representations by the general
public of the necessity, in public interest, to modify the
scheme approved under sub-s. 2 of s. 68-D of that Act. It is
not at the behest of the erstwhile holders of the permit,
who have been completely or partially frozen to obtain
permit afresh or intending fresh applications in this
behalf. It is now settled law that even on a partial
overlapping approved scheme private operators have been
totally prohibited to have corridor, shelters and could no
longer enter into the frozen area, route or part thereof and
obtain permit to render transport service to the travelling
public. When that be so, the partial exclusion does not
offend Art. 14 of the Constitution. In fact the respondents
did not question the validity of the scheme. Thus considered
the approach and the reasoning of the High Court are clearly
illegal. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the judgment
of the High Court is set aside. The writ petition stands
dismissed. Rule nisi discharged. But in the circumstances
the parties are left to bear their own costs.
T.N.A. Appeal allowed.
836