Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT22/02/1991
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
RAMASWAMY, K.
CITATION:
1991 SCR (1) 667 1991 SCC (2) 418
JT 1991 (2) 557 1991 SCALE (1)341
ACT:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: Stage Carriage permits-Grant
of-Private Operators-Bhukunda-Chaibasa route-Part of rout
Ranchi-Chaibasa a nationlised route covered by notified
Scheme under section 68-D(3)-Objections by State Road
Transport Corporation rejected and permits granted to two
private operators.
Section 2(28-A)-Definition of word ’route’-Notified
Scheme dated 1.4.1960 converting 7 routes including Ranchi-
Chaibasa route-Interpretation of words ’direct service’-
Whether the view taken by High Court in Marwari Motor
Service’s case is any more relevant in view of the decision
of this Court in Adarsh Travels’ case.
HEADNOTE:
The State Transport Authority, Bihar invited
application for grant of Stage Carriage permits for the
route named, Bhukunda-Chaibasa via Patratu-Pithoria-Kanke-
Ranchi-Chakradharpur part of which, that is, Ranchi Chaibasa
is covered under a notified Scheme dated 1.4.1960, duly in
force, under the Act. The Bihar State Road Transport
Corporation, a State Undertaking, filed its objections
claiming that no private operator could be permitted to
operate the said route as part of the route being Ranchi-
Chaibasa was itself a notified route and grant of permits on
the route in question would contravene the notified Scheme.
Taking the view that the over-lapping Ranchi-Chaibasa route
was restrictedly notified for direct services only, the
objections raised by the Corporation were rejected and
permits for the route in question granted to respondents 3
and 4. Corporation’s appeal to the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal and thereafter Writ Petition before the
Patna High Court being unsuccessful, it has come in appeal
by special leave against the judgment of the High Court
dismissing the Writ Petition in limine. Allowing the appeal
and quashing all the three orders, this Court.
HELD: In the light of the observations made in
Constitution
668
Bench decision of this Court in Adarsh Travels’ case
defining the word ’route’, the Ranchi-Chibasa route is
identified as the line of travel on which State Undertaking
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
on nationalisation is allowed to run its vehicles. The
bracketed words ’direct service’ occuring in seriol no. 7
when contrasted with entries in serial nos. 1 to 6 reveal
that the total route of Ranchi-Chaibasa, without leaving any
portion, stood nationalised signifying by its name that
Ranchi-Chaibsa route is a straight and direct line of travel
which would be traversed by a vehicle by the State Transport
Undertaking between two termini rendering all kinds of
services. Any further interpretation would frustrate the
object of Chapter IV-A whereunder the scheme is prepared.
[672G-673B]
If the interpretation put by the Patna High Court in
Marwari Motor Service’s case to the bracketed words ’direct
service’ is to be kept valid, it would frustrate the very
purpose of nationalisation, for any person in that event
could operate on a nationalised route by adding thereto, or
substracting therefrom, some kilometerage and keep one
terminus as a point of start, or a point of ending, on an
un-notified route and put forward his willingness to submit
himself to the discipline called ’corridor restictions’
which practice has been deprecated by this Court. [673E-F]
M/s Marwari Motor Service v. Chotanagpur Regional
Transport Authority and Others, AIR 1973 Patna (Vol. 60)
273, referred to.
Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Another v. Stat of U.P. &
Others, [1985] (Suppl.) 3 SCR 661, followed.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3693 of
1982.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.1982 of the
Patna High court in C.W.J.C. No. 4087 of 1981.
Ranjit Kumar for the Appellant.
Ex-Parti for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUNCHHI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed
against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna
dated 29-1-1982 passed in Civil Writ Number 4087 of 1981
dismissing the Writ Petition of the appellant in limine.
The appellant, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation,
is a
669
State Transport Undertaking. Under the provision of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereafter referred to as the
’Act’), the State Transport Authority invited applications
for the grant of stage carriage permits for the route named
Bhukunda-Chaibasa via Patratu-Pithoria-Kanke-Ranchi-
Chakradharpur part of which, that is, Ranchi-Chaibasa is
covered under a notified scheme dated 1-4-1960, duly in
force, under the provisions of the Act. On applications
received in response to the invitation, the Corporation
filed its objections before the State Transport Authority
claiming that no private operator could be permitted to
operate on the said route, as part of it, being Ranchi-
Chaibasa, was by itself a notified route and the grant of
permits on the route in question would contravene a notified
scheme. The objection of the Corporation was rejected by
the State Transport Authority in its meeting held on 23rd
and 24th January, 1979 taking the view that the overlapping
Ranchi-Chaibasa route was restrictedly notified for direct
services only and as such there could be no legal objection
to the grant of permits on the Bhukunda-Chaibasa route. It
accordingly granted permits to respondents 3 and 4 herein.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
Appellant’s appeal before the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal, Biharwas dismissed and the view of the State
Transport Authority was upheld. The Appellate Tribunal in
support of its view placed reliance on a division bench of
the Patna High Court in M/s Marwari Motor Service v.
Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority and others, AIR
1973 Patna (Vol 60) 273 in which such an objection as raised
herein was negatived. The appellant’s writ petition against
the orders of the State Transport Appellat Tribunal, Bihar
was dismissed in limine giving cause to the appellant to
approach this Court for appropriate relief.
The notified scheme dated 1-4-1960, afore-referred to,
where-under the Ranchi-Chaibasa route was declared a
nationalised route was the brain child of the Appellant-
Corporation itself. Initially a draft scheme was published
in the Bihar Gazette on 13-1-1960 under the provisions of
Section 68-C of the Act. Objections were invited to the
proposed scheme and after considering the objections
received, the State Government approved the scheme with some
modifications under section 68-D(2) of the Act. The
approved scheme was then notified under section 68-D(3) of
the Act in the Bihar Gazette on April 1, 1960. The relevant
extract of the scheme is reproduced below:
"The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation shall
run and operate stage carriage services relating to
routes or portions thereof specified below to the
complete exclusion of other persons except those
who, on the dates, specified
670
below, hold permanent permits to run stage
carriages in those routes and are hereby allowed to
operate them until the dates of expiration of the
existing permits.
------------------------------------------------------------
Sl. Nature of Name of route Name of Date from which
No. service service services as
proposed to be
plied
------------------------------------------------------------
1. Stage Ranchi-Muri All 1st April, 1961
carriage or portions services
thereof
2. Ditto Hazaribagh Ditto 1st April, 1960
Ranchi or
portions thereof
3. Ditto Barhi-Bagodar- Ditto Ditto
Dumri-Gobind-
pur or portions
thereof
4. Ditto Giridih-Dumri Ditto Ditto
or portions
thereof
5. Ditto Giridih-Jamua- Ditto 1st April, 1961
Kedarma or
portions thereof
6. Ditto Jamua-Chakai Ditto Ditto
or portions
thereof
7. Ditto Ranchi-Chaibasa Ditto 1st April,1960
(direct service)
------------------------------------------------------------
It is evident from the Entry in serial no. 7 that the
name of the route is Ranchi-Chaibasa and in this Entry alone
that the bracketed words ’direct service’ finds mention
whereas in the remaining serial nos. 1 to 6, the main routes
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
or portions thereof are contrastingly
671
mentioned. In Marwari Motor Service’s case (supra), the
then writ petitioner stood already given a stage carriage
permit for the route Hazaribag-Hazaribag Road and when its
renewal was objected to by the corporation on the ground
that it would overlap Hazaribag-Bagodar notified route, the
words ’direct service’ occuring in the relevant entry of the
notification under the notified route was required to be
interpreted. The contention of the said writ petitioner
before the High Court was that though private operators
stood ousted on the Hazaribag-Bagodar route, it could not
be ousted from operating on a longer or shorter route even
though overlapping wholly or partially on the Hazaribag-
Bagodar route. The corporation refuted the argument by
contending that no private operator could be permitted to
operate on any portion of the route even if he had tended to
operate on a longer or a shorter route. Confronted with
this situation, the Patna High Court ventured, in the
absence of any direct binding judicial precedent, to solve
the question by adopting the interpretation given to the
bracketed words ’direct service by the Transport Minister of
the Bihar Government to mean the exclusion of private
operators for direct transport services only and not to the
exclusion of private operators thereon overlapping on longer
or shorter routes. Another factor which appealed to the
High Court was that though the scheme had come into force in
1960 and Hazaribag-Bagodar route had been nationalised still
the then writ petitioner had thereafter been kept granted
route permits on the Hazaribag-Hazaribag Road route despite
overlapping on the nationalised routes. The High Court in
these circumstances made the following observations:
The correct meaning is that private operators who
were operating directly on Hazaribag-Bagodar route
were excluded, private operators having these two
termini were not allowed to operate but private
operators having only one terminus out of these two
termini or passing through this route having
different termini were not excluded in the approved
scheme".
Relying on the said ratio the Transport authorities
overruled the objection of the Corporation.
We have had the advantage of hearing Mr. Ranjit Kumar,
learned counsel for the appellant only since no one appeared
either on behalf of the State of Bihar nor for the permit
holders respondents 3 and 4. The sole point for
consideration is whether the view taken by the Patna High
Court in Marwari Motor Service’s case (supras in any more
rele-
672
vant in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of
this Court in Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Another v. State
of U.P. & Others, [1985] (Supp.) 3 SCR 661.
In Adarsh Travels’s case (supra), this Court ruled that
if the route has been nationalised under Chapter IV-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act, a private operator with a permit to ply
stage carriage for another route, which has a common
overlapping sector with the nationalised route, can ply his
vehicle over that part of the overlapping common sector if
he does not pick up or drop passengers on the overlapping
part of the route, and the question would really get the
right answer on the terms of the scheme rather than on the
provisions of the statute. The word ’route’ was introduced
to be defined in section 2(28A) of the Act by amendment from
March 2, 1970 to mean ’the line of travel which specifies
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle
between one terminus and another. Spelling out the
necessity for its so defining it was recorded:
"The introduction of section 2(28A) defining the
expression ’route’ appears to have been
necessitated to dispel the confusion consequent
upon the seeming acceptance by this Court in
Nilkantha Prasad and Others v. State of Bihar,
[1962] Supp. 1 SCR 728 of the suggested differences
between ’route’ and ’highway’ by the Privy Council
in Kelani valley Motor Transit Co. Ltd. v. Colombo
Ratnapura Omnibus Co. Ltd., [1946] A.C. 338 where
it was said, ’A "highway" is the physical track
along which an omnibus runs, whilst a "route"
appears to their Lordships to be an abstract
conception of line of travel between one terminus
and another, and to be something distinct from the
highway traversed .... there may be alternative
roads leading from one terminus to another but that
does not make the route any highway the same.’ The
present definition of route makes it a physical
reality instead of an abstract conception and no
longer makes it something distinct from the highway
traversed."
In the light of the above observations Ranchi-Chaibasa route
is identified as the line of travel on which State Transport
Undertaking on nationalisation is allowed to run its
vehicles. The bracketed words ’direct service’ occuring in
serial no. 7 when contrasted with entries in serial nos. 1
to 6 reveal that the total route of Ranchi-Chaibasa, without
leaving any portion, stood nationalised signifying by its
name that
673
Ranchi-Chaibasa route is a straight and direct line of
travel which would be traversed by a vehicle by the State
Transport Undertaking between two termini rendering all
kinds of services. Any further interpretation would
frustrate the object of Chapter IV-A whereunder the scheme
is prepared. It was observed in Adarsh Travel’s case
(supra) as follows:
"It is well known that under the guise of the so
called ’corridor restrictions’ permits over longer
routes which cover shorter notified routes
’overlapping’ parts of notified routes are more
often that no misutilised since it is next to nigh
impossible to keep a proper check at every point of
the route. Often times permits for plying stage
carriages from a point a short distance beyond one
terminus to a point at a short distance beyond
another terminus of a notified route have been
applied for and granted subject to the so called
’corridor restrictions’ which are but mere ruses or
traps to obtain permits and to frustrate the
scheme. If indeed there is any need for protecting
the travelling public from inconvenience, the State
Transport Undertaking and the Government will have
to make sufficient provision in the scheme itself
to avoid inconvenience being caused to the
travelling public."
If the interpretation put by the Patna High Court in Marwari
Motor Service’s case (supra) to the bracketed words ’direct
service’ is to be kept valid, it would frustrate the very
purpose of nationalisation, for any person in that event
could operate on a nationalised route by adding thereto, or
substracting therefrom, some kilometerage and keep one
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
terminus as a point of start, or a point of ending, on an
un-notified route and put forward his willingness to submit
himself to the discipline called ’corridor restrictions’
which practice has been deprecated by this Court.
For the views afore-expressed, we are of the view that
Marwari Motor Service’s case (supra) militates against the
principles settled in Adarsh Travel’s case (supra) and thus
it should be left to be confined to the facts of that case
and not any more a binding precedent. Having taken that
view, we come to the conclusion that the State Transport
Authority and State Transport Appellate Tribunal were in
error in rejecting the objections of the appellant and High
Court too was in error in dismissing the writ petition in
limine. Accordingly, instead of remanding the matter to the
High Court, we allow this appeal and
674
quash the aforesaid three orders but without any order as to
costs. Since there was no opposition, we permit respondents
3 and 4 to keep plying vehicles on their permits, subject of
course to their being subsisting and valid till date, uptill
31st March, 1991, and not any further, to avoid abrupt
disruption of transport facilities. We also leave it open
to the State Government to take such steps as are further
necessary to avoid inconvenience to the travelling public
and for that purpose it may coordinate with the appellant
corporation by making suitable amendment and provisions in
the scheme to further that cause.
R.N.J. Appeal allowed.
675