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