http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE MYSORE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/05/1974

BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH ALAGIRISWAMI, A.

CITATION:  1974 AIR 1940            1975 SCR  (1) 615  CITATOR INFO :  R          1984 SC 953  (2)  RF         1986 SC 319  (1,7,13)  R          1992 SC1888  (9)

ACT: Motor  Vehicles Act, Sec. 68C-Inter-state operators  whether prohibited from plying vehicles on intrastate routes-Meaning of   route  and  area--Interpretation   of   scheme-Complete exclusion whether can be implied.

HEADNOTE: Certain  Intra-state routes were nationalised under  Chapter IV-A  of the Motor Vehicles Act.  There were three  approved schemes  of nationalisation namely Anekal  Scheme,  Gulbarga Scheme and the Bangalore Scheme.  Parts of these Intra-state routes  overlapped  inter-state routes over,  which  private transporters  were granted permits to ply their vehicles  on condition that they will neither pick up nor drop passengers on any overlapping parts of routes. The  preamble  to Anekal Scheme and Gulbarge Scheme  do  not state that the scheme is of a total exclusion.  The preamble to  the  Bangalore Scheme, however,  mentions  the  complete exclusion  of all other operators from certain routes.   The Anekal  Scheme gives the termini with  intermediate  points. The  names  of  the  Inter-State  operators  have  not  been mentioned  in any of these three Schemes.  The schemes  show that  the term "route" is used in each scheme  for  services between two termini. ’The appellant Corporation object to the permits granted  to the  Inter-State  Transporters  in  so  far  as  they  cover overlapping  portions of Intra-state routes on the basis  of three schemes. Dismissing the appeal, HELD  :  (1)  There  can be  no  doubt  that  the  appellant corporation has power to frame a scheme under Section  68(C) of  the  Motor Vehicles Act, Providing that  Road  Transport Services in general or in any particular class, in  relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run and by the  State Transport Undertaking whether to  the  exclusion, complete  or  partial of other persons or  otherwise.   This power  includes the power to exclude even inter-state  motor operators  altogether  from a part of  any  notified  route.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

[494G] (2)Section  68C however requires as a condition  precedent to any exclusion of private operators that the scheme should give  particulars of the nature of services proposed  to  be rendered, the area of route proposed to be covered and  such other particulars as may be prescribed.  Each scheme has  to be  Published  in the official Gazette.   A  scheme  finally emerging  after  opportunities are given for  objections  by persons interested. [495B-C] (3)A  scheme  which totally excludes  inter-state  private operators  from sing any part of a notified route must  make the intention to do that clear.  The Act makes a distinction between notification of an area and of a route.  An area may cover  a  number  of  routes.  A route  is  not  merely  the physical surface covered by the highway to be traversed. but connotes  the  abstract  concept  of  line  of  travel.    A difference in the two termini will make two routes different even if there is an overlapping surface. of the road  common to  two routes.  Unless a scheme clearly indicates that  the user of every portion of a highway covered by an  intrastate notified  "route"  so conceived is prohibited.  also  to  an inter-state  motor vehicle operator, who really plies  on  a different  route  inasmuch as his termini are  bound  to  be different from those of an intrastate route, the  interstate operators  may not be completely debarred from the  user  of the  overlapping  part  of an  inter-state  route.   A  more physical overlapping of the two is not enough to exclude the private inter-state operators by any necessary  implication. Such an exclusion must be made clear and unequivocal in  the scheme. [496B.  D. F-H] 494 (4).      The  rules  require  that existing  operators.  on each  route must be named and the numbers of their  vehicles must  be given before they ’could be deemed to  be  excluded from any part of a route.  Unless their names are  mentioned they  cannot  come forward to object  as  persons  affected. [497D-E]. (5)  The  Inter-state operators were not meant to be  denied the use of the overlapping portions of routes covered by the scheme.   Their names were not mentioned as required by  the rules.  The Anekal and Gulbarga schemes did not even talk of the  complete  exclusion. : The  Bangalore  Scheme  mentions complete  exclusion  but  this exclusion  seems  to  be,  in respect of operators Providing services between the  terming mentioned  there and not merely using overlapping  portions, of  the  notified  rules incidentally.   No  explanation  is forthcoming  as to why names and the numbers of  the  inter- state transporters were not mentioned in the scheme.  [501C- F] Nilkanth  Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar, [1962]  1  S.C.R. 728,  Kelani, Valley Motor Transit Co. v. Colombo  Ratnapura Omnibus  Co.  [1946]  A.C. 338 and  Kondala  Rao  v.  Andhra Pradesh  State Road Transport Corporation, A.I.R. 1961  S.C. 82, distinguished

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.  1755  to 1756 of 1969, 362 to 363 and 1918 to 1920 of 1970 and 490 to 492 of 1973. Appeals  by Special leave from the Judgment and Order  dated the  10th October, 1968, 11th March, 1969, 24th March,  1969 and 16th June, 1969 of the Mysore High Court in W.P. Nos.  3 322  and,  379/ 66, W.P. Nos. 800, 1186,  1188,  1190  1191,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

1228-31 1233/69 and 3910, 3913, 3921, and 3932/68, 1189  and 1192/69, 1234/69, 20682070/69 respectively and special leave petitions: Nos. 2015 to 2112 and 2408 to 2412 of 1969.  From the  Judgment and order dated 11th November, 1969  and  16th June, 1969 of the Mysore High Court in W.P. Nos. 3908, 3912, 3923,  3925, 3926, 3230, 3933 and 3933/ 68, and  2067,  2078 and 2080-2082/68. Shyamla     Pappu    and    Vineet    Kumar,     for     the appellants/Petitioners. S.   S. Ganguli and H. K. Puri for respondents. P.   K. Pillai for the respondent. A.   G. Ratnaparkhi for the respondent. S.   V. Gupte, M. R. V. Achar, M. Rangaswamy and B. P. Singh for respondent. Y.   S.  Chitale,  M. Rangaswamy, M. R. V. Achar and  B.  P. Singh for respondent. D. N. Mishra for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG,  J.-There  are  twenty two  appeals  by  Special  leave together  with  thirteen connected special  leave  petitions involving a common  question of law for decision before  us. This  question arises out of three approved  schemes,  which may  be  called  the  Anekal  Scheme  dated  15-4-1959,  the Gulbarga  Scheme dated 18-2-1960, and the  Bangalore  Scheme dated 7-6-1960, for the nationalisation under Chapter IVA of th--  Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred  to  as ’the  Act’), of transport services on certain  routes  lying within the State of Mysore.  But, parts of these  intrastate routes   overlap  inter-state  routes  over  which   private transporters were granted permits and then their renewals by the State Transport authorities to ply their vehicles.   The Mysore 495 State Road Transport Corporation objects to these permits in so  far  as they cover overlapping  portions  of  intrastate routes.   The  common question of law which  arises  may  be formulated as follows:               "Can  a  permit be granted to  an  Inter-State               Transport Operator for the whole of his  route               despite  the  fact that a part  of  the  route               overlaps  a  part of  a  notified  intra-State               route" ? There can be no doubt that the Mysore State Transport Under- taking has the power to frame a scheme under section 68C  of Chapter  IVA of the Act, providing "in the  public  interest that  road transport services in general or  any  particular class  of  such  service in relation to  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".   This   power includes  the  power  to  exclude  even  inter-state   motor operators altogether from a part of any notified route. (See :  Nilkanth Prasad & Ors.  Vs.  State of Bihar(1),  Standard Motor  Union  Pvt Ltd.  Vs.  State of Kerala  &  Ors(2);  S. Abdul Khader Saheb Vs.  Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal  & Ors.(3)  The Transport authorities have no power to  deviate from or modify the terms of approved schemes which have  the force of law.  They can issue or otherwise deal with permits only in accordance with the provisions of the schemes  which may  be  either  partial  or  total  exclusion  of   private operators  from  notified  routes.   We  have  to  determine whether  the  schemes  before us are  of  partial  or  total exclusion. Section  68C  requires,  as a  condition  precedent  to  any exclusion   of   private  operators  under   a   scheme   of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

nationalisation from "any area or route or portion thereof", that  the scheme should give "particulars of the  nature  of services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and such other particulars respecting  thereto as  may be prescribed".  Each scheme has to be published  in the official Gazette and also "in such manner, as the  State Govt.   may  direct".   A  scheme  finally  emerges,   after opportunities  given  under  Section  68D  of  the  Act  for objections  by  persons interested  in  providing  transport facilities as left as by local and police authorities within the  area  or upon the routes proposed to be  covered  by  a scheme,  as  an  approved  scheme  in  which  the   original proposals may or may not have been modified.  Each scheme so approved  can be either cancelled or modified by  the  State Transport  Undertaking  under  Section 68E  of  the  Act  in accordance with the procedure laid down by Sections 68C  and 68D of the Act. The power of the State Transport Undertaking to prohibit the use  of any portion of a route by Inter-state operators  has not  been  questioned before us.  Nevertheless,  it  may  be pertinent  to  point out that this Court thus  indicated  in Saghir Ahmed & Anr. v. State of U.P. &Ors.,(4) the nature of the right of the public to use public roads (at page 717) :               "But  the  right of the public  to  use  motor               vehicles on the               public road cannot, in any sense, be  regarded               as a right               (1)   [1962](1) Suppl.  S.C.R. 728.               (2)   [1969](1) S.C.R. 464.               (3)   AIR 1973 S.C. 534.               (4)   [1955] 1 S.C.R. 707, 717.               496               created by the Motor Vehicles Act.  The  right               exists  anterior  to any legislation  on  this               subject as an incident of public rights over a               highway.    The   State  only   controls   and               regulates  it  for  the  purpose  of  ensuring               safety,  peace, health and good morals of  the               public.  Once the position is accepted that  a               member of the public is entitled to ply mother               vehicles on the public road as an incident  of               his  right  of  passage over  a  highway,  the               question is really immaterial whether he plies               a  vehicle for pleasure or pastime or for  the               purpose of trade and business.  The nature  of               the right in respect of the highway is not  in               any  way affected thereby and we cannot  agree               with  the  learned Advocate-General  that  the               user of a public road for purposes of trade is               an  extraordinary  or  special  use  of   ’the               highway  which  can  be  acquired  only  under               special sanction from the State". It is enough for the purpose of the cases before us to  note the distinction between the right to use a road which may be a  part  of a notified "route" and the right  to  ply  motor vehicles  on hire upon a ,.route" for which a permit has  to be obtained under the Act.  Notification of a route under  a scheme prevents issue of permits contrary to the scheme  for the  route.  Assuming for the purposes of the  cases  before us, that the State Transport Undertaking can totally exclude interstate  private  operators  from using  any  part  of  a notified  route,  a scheme which has that  effect  must,  at least,  make  the intention to do that clear before  it  can prevent  the  exercise of another wise legal  right  to  ply motor  vehicles  for  hire on a public  highway  subject  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

regulation of this kind of user by permits issues under  the Act.  The question is, in our opinion, one of interpretation of the scheme formulated in each case.  Before  interpreting each of the three schemes mentioned above, we will refer  to the relevant provisions which have a bearing on questions of interpretation  of the schemes and of the particulars  given therein. As  each  scheme  of nationalisation is to  be  prepared  in public  interest, Section 68C requires the  State  Transport Undertaking  to give particulars "of the nature of  services proposed  to  be  rendered by it".  A  distinction  is  made between  notification  of an "area" and of  a  "route".   An area,  which  has to be notified under Section 2(i)  of  the Act,  may cover a number of routes.  A route, as defined  by the  insertion  of  (28A) made by the Act  56  of  1969,  in Section  2 of be Act, is "a line of travel  which  specifies the  high-way  which  may be traversed by  a  motor  vehicle between  one terminus and another".  Whatever may have  been the  meaning of the word "route" before this  insertion,  it appears to us that, after this clarification, a route is not merely  the physical surface covered by the high-way  to  be traversed,  but the abstract concept of "a line of  travel", which  connects  one terminus with another,  has  also  been introduced into the legal definition of a ,.route". The  two concepts  are  now so interlined that a route would  not  be properly  indicated by merely specifying the  highway  which may  be  traversed without giving its two terming.   And,  a difference in-the two terming will make two routes different even  if there is an overlapping surface of the road  common to routes.  In other words, the two 497 terming  are  an essential part of the concept of  a  route. Notification   of  routes  takes  place  for   purposes   of nationalisation  of transport services on the  routes.   The routes are not nationalised as physical surfaces of notified areas  reserved  for use by State owned vehicles  only,  but what  is nationalised is the provision of certain  transport services on those routes. Unless  a  scheme clearly indicates that the user  of  every portion of a highway covered by an intrastate notified route is prohibited also to an inter-state motor vehicle operator, who  really  plies on a different " route" inasmuch  as  its termini  are  bound  to  be  different  from  those  of   an intrastate  route,  the  inter-state  operator  may  not  be completely debarred from the user of the overlapping part of an intrastate route.  A mere physical overlapping of the two may  not  be  enough  to  excluder  the  private  interstate operators by any necessary implication.  If the intention is to exclude such user by an operator of another route a  part of which over-laps a notified route, that intention must  be made,  clear and unequivocal by the scheme in order to  have that effect. Section  68C  also mentions other particulars  of  a  scheme which  may  be  prescribed.   These  particulars  have  been prescribed in the State of Mysore by means of rules notified in the Mysore Gazette dated 27-2-1958.  The relevant portion of the first rule reads as follows                "1.  Every  scheme  or  modified  scheme  for               passenger transport service shall contain  the               following particulars :-               1.    The area in relation to which the scheme               is proposed.               2.    Whether  City/Town service  or  moffusil               service.               3.    The route or routes (with their starting

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

             points,  termini,  intermediate  stations  and               route   length)  in  which  the   State   Road               Transport  Undertaking proposes  to  introduce               its  services  to  the  exclusion  of  private               operators.               4.    The  number of existing stage  carriages               on  each route with their number of trips  and               the names of their operators.               5.    The maximum and minimum number of  stage               carriages proposed to be operated by the State               Transport  Undertaking  to  the  exclusion  of               private  operators in relation to  each  route               and  the  type and seating  capacity  of  each               vehicle.               6.    The maximum number of trips proposed  to               be performed on each route.               7.    Number  of vehicles intended to be  kept               in  reserve  to maintain the  service  and  to               provide for special occasions". With  regard  to  the above mentioned  particulars,  it  was submitted, on behalf of the inter-state operators, that sub- rules 3 and 4 of rule 1 set out above, require that existing operators  on  each route must be named and the  numbers  of their vehicles must be given before they could be deemed  to be  excluded  from any part of a route.  It was  also  urged that, unless the scheme indicates which persons are  treated as providing a service or plying on the notified route, they could  not be expected to come forward to object as  persons affected.  Hence, 498 it  is submitted, if the State Transport Undertaking  itself treated  them  as persons unaffected by  nationalisation  of transport   services  on  certain  intrastate  routes,   its intention would appear to be to leave untouched or  preserve the rights of inter-state, operators who were already  there merely  to use parts of notified routes.  The  argument  was that the inter-state operators were, by a clear implication, permitted  by  each  scheme  to  use  overlapping  parts  of notified  intrastate routes.  They were, it was urged,  thus me-ant  to be, excluded from the purview of the  prohibition in each scheme. In  some  of  the cases before  us  the  Regional  Transport Officer had himself either granted or renewed the permits of the  inter-state  operators.   In  other  cases,  where  the Regional Transport Officer had rejected the applications  of the  interstate  operators  concerned,  the  operators   had succeeded   in  obtaining  permits  from  the  final   state Appellate  Authority  functioning under the Act.   The  High Court  had, in every case, upheld the grants of  permits  to the  inter-state operators.  It had found the schemes to  be ambiguous.   But,  it  overruled  the  contention  that  the schemes  warranted total prohibition or exclusion of  inter- state;  operators  on overlapping parts of  notified  routes mainly  on  the ground that such a contention could  not  be advanced  for  the  first time before it in  the  course  of arguments. It  was  also contended that, the Manager of  the  appellant Corporation  had  impliedly admitted before,  the  Transport authorities  that  interstate  operators  were  not  totally prohibited  by  any scheme from using  overlapping  portions because he confined his objection to the sufficiency of  the number  of buses serving on the overlapping parts of  routes and  had  not relied upon any parts of the schemes  for  any alleged-  total  prohibition of the use of  the  overlapping parts of notified routes by the inter-state operators.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

It  may be mentioned here that a condition had been  imposed by the final Appellate Transport Authority upon each  inter- state  operator  that  he  will neither  pick  up  nor  drop passengers  on any part of the overlapping  notified  route. Therefore, one of the questions argued before us is  whether the  Transport authorities had any power or jurisdiction  to grant permits to interstate, operators even by annexing such conditions  so that overlapping portions of notified  routes could be merely used by the inter-state operators  concerned for taking their stage carriages and passengers through them but  not to provide services for passengers to or  from  any place falling upon any portions of the notified routes.   It was submitted, on behalf of the appellant Corporation,  that all  that  the Transport authorities could do  was  to  give effect  to  the  provisions of each scheme  but  not  to  do anything which may be a modification of the scheme. Although,  the actions of the Transport authorities and  the conduct  or a concession of the Manager of  the  Corporation may  be  relevant  in considering whether a  scheme  was  so framed  as  to  clearly  convey  to  the  officials  of  the Corporation and to the, Transport authorities concerned that it was a scheme of total prohibition extending to even  user of any portion of an overlapping notified route by an inter- state  operator, yet, the real question to be considered  is whether 499 the  scheme itself in each case, on the contents of  it  and the  language employed by the framers of it, warrants  total exclusion  of the kind contended for before us on behalf  of the Corporation. It  is  true that this Court does not  ordinarily  interfere with  the discretion of the High Court to refuse to allow  a question to be raised for the first time in arguments before it.  But, it is pointed out that the question raised  before the  High Court and argued before us is one of  jurisdiction or power of the Transport authorities which goes to the root of the case so that the High Court should have permitted  it to  be raised and decided it.  We find that the  High  Court did,  albeit  indirectly, consider the question  by  holding that  the  schemes were ambiguous and did not rule  out  the interpretation   that  they  were  not  schemes   of   total prohibition  as  the schemes could and should have  done  if that  was intended.  The High Court had also correctly  made observations  indicating  that, where such an  intention  of total  prohibition  of  even the case of a  portion  of  the notified   route   is  present,  the   intention   must   be communicated in clear enough language so as not to leave the transport  authorities in any doubt as to what they  are  to enforce.  And, as we have granted special leave on this very question  and have heard arguments on it, we  will  consider the question briefly and not dispose of the cases before  us simply  on  the ground that the question  should  have  been raised  at  an  earlier. stage on behalf  of  the  appellant Corporation.   We will, therefore, examine the  contents  of each of the three approved schemes in which the preamble and clauses 3 to 7 have a special bearing on the question  under consideration. In  the Anekal Scheme, the preamble does not state that  the scheme  is  of  total exclusion.  Clauses 3  to  17  of  the approved scheme are stated as follows : "3.The route or routs (with their start-   As in statement ing points, termini, intermediate         1 appended stations  and route (length) in which the State Transport Under- taking will    introduce its services

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

the exclusion of private operators. 4. The number of existing stage carria-      As in statement ges on each route with the number of          2 appended trips and the names of their operators. 5. The maximum and minimum number of stage carriages to be operated by the State Road Transport Undertak- ing to the exclusion of private opera- tors in relation to each route and the type and seating capacity of each vehicle. 5(a) Maximum  and  minimum  number  of  stage  carriages  to   be operated; As in Statement 1 appended 5(b) Type and Seating capacity of each vehicle Semi-saloon,  single dickers.  The seating capacity of  each vehicle is 36 to 45 seat. 6.   The maximum number of trips to      As in statement 1 be performed on each route.                appended 7.   The  number of vehicles to be          25 per  sent  of kept in  reserve to maintain the services    the operating  and to provide for special occasions.         fleet". In the Gulbarga scheme, the preamble states that approval is given,  to  the originally published  proposals  subject  to certain modifications, One of the modifications is-that  the words "or any portion thereof’ 500 wherever they appear in column 2 of the, statement  appended to  the  scheme published by the General  Manager  shall  be deleted.  The, relevant clauses 3 to 7 read as follows :               "3.  The route or routes (with their  starting               points,  termini,  intermediate  stations  and               route   length)  in  which  the   State   Road               Transport  Undertaking  shall  introduce   its               services,   to   the  exclusion   of   private               operators.               As in statement appended.               4.  The number of existing stage carriages  on               each  route with the number of trips  and  the               names of their operators.               5.    The maximum and minimum number of  stage               carriages  to  be operated by the  State  Road               Transport  Undertaking  to  the  exclusion  of               private  operators in relation to  each  route               and  the  type  and sating  capacity  of  each               vehicle.               6.    The  maximum  number  of  trips  to   be               performed on each route.               7.    The number of vehicles to be kept and to               maintain  the services to provide for  special               occasions.                Twenty-five percent of the operating fleet               (4)  (a)  At present, only the Mysore  Govern-               ment  Road Transport Department  is  operating               service  on  these routes, and the  number  of               existing  stage  carriages and the  number  of               trips are as in statement appended.               5(a)  Maximum  and  minimum, number  of  stage               carriages  to  be operated  As   in  statement               appended.,               5(b)  Type   and  seating  capacity  of   each               vehicle.  Semi-saloon,  single-deckers.    The               seating  capacity of each vehicle is 26 to  55               seats.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

             6 (a) As in statement appended.               7(a)  Twenty-five  per-cent of  the  operating               fleet".               The preamble to the Bangalore scheme  mentions               the  following modifications of  the  original               proposals:               (a)   that the passenger transport services on               the routes appearing at sl.  Nos.  1 to 22 and               24,  25,  26,  27 anti  53  of  the  statement               appended  including services between  any  two               places  therein should be run and operated  by               the   State  Transport  Undertaking   to   the               complete exclusion of other operators               (b)   Subject   to   (a)  above,   the   State               Transport Undertaking should operate  services               on  the  remaining  routes  appearing  in  the               statement  appended between the two  specified               terminals  only, to the complete exclusion  of               all  other  operators,  excluding  the  inter-               mediate routes;"               The relevant clauses 3 to 7 are given here  as               follows:               The    route    or    routes    (with    their               startingpoints, termini, intermediate stations               and  route  length) in which  the  State  Road               Transport  Undertaking  shall  introduce   its               services   to   the   exclusion   of   private               operators.               (a)  The passenger transport services  on  the               routes appearing at Sl. Nos.  1 to 22, and 24,               25,  26,  27,  39  and  53  of  the  statement               appended  including services between  any  two               places  therein should be run and operated  by               the   State  Transport  Undertaking   to   the               complete exclusion of other operators; 501 (b)  Subject  to (a) above, the State Transport  Undertaking should  operate services on the remaining ,routes  appearing in   the  statement  appended  between  the  two   specified terminals  only  to  the complete  exclusion  of  all  other operators, excluding the intermediate routes; 4. The number of existing stage     At present only the   carriages on each route with      Mysore Government Road   the number of trips and the       Transport Department is   names of their operators          operating services on                                     these routes and in the                                     number of trips are as                                     in statement appended. 5. (a) The maximum and minimum     (a) Maximum and minimum    number of stage carriages to     of stage carriages to be    be operated by the State Road    operated; As in the   Transport Undertaking to the      statement appended.   exclusion of private operators    (b) Type and seating   in relation to each route and      capacity of each veh-                                      cile.   (b) the type and seating capacity  Semi-saloon single-      of each vehicle                 dickers, the seating                                      capacity of each                                      vehicle is 26 to 35                                       seats. 6. The maxims number of trips    As in statement appended    to be performed on each route 7. The number of vehicles to be     Twenty-five per-cent of    kept in reserve to maintain      the operating fleet."    the services and to provide

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

 for special occasions. It  may be mentioned here that clauses 3 and 4 of the  three schemes are apparently intended to carry out the  provisions of  sub-rules  3 and 4 of the  State  Transport  Undertaking Mysore  State  Rules, 1958, Set out above.   In  the  Anekal scheme,  the  appended statement mentioned in clause  3  (in purported  compliance of sub rule 3) gives the termini  with intermediate  points thereby indicating that  the  exclusive service  on  each route is intended to be  one  which  takes place  only  between  the  given there and  not  as  a  mere incident  of  service  between other  termini.   The  second statement mentioned in clause 4 (in purported compliance  of sub-rule  4) gives the number of the existing sup  carriages and  the  names of their operators  serving  the  prohibited routes  indicated in terms of their termini.  Ile  strongest point  of the inter-state operators is that their names  are not mentioned in the second appended statement.  Hence, they could  not either object as persons whose rights were  meant to be affected or who could be compensated under Section 68G after  necessary  modification  or  cancellation  of   their permits for the overlapping portions.  We, therefore.  think that   the  contention  that  inter-state   operators   were apparently  not  meant  to be denied the  mere  use  of  the overlapping  portions  of routes covered by this  scheme  is well  supported.   In  fact, this  is  the  more  reasonable inference.   Similarly, the appended statements of the  Gul- barga  scheme  show  that the term "route" is  used  in  the scheme  for  services between two termini and  that  persons merely using portions of the route while travelling  between other  termini  are not totally prohibited the user  of  the overlapping route.  Lastly, as regards the Bangalore scheme, the  case  of  the appellant Corporation  may,  seem  better inasmuch  as  the  words  used there  are  :  "the  complete exclusion of all 502 other  operators excluding the intermediate  routes".   But, even  here,  the exclusion appears to be only  of  operators providing  services between the termini mentioned there  and not merely using overlapping portions of the notified routes incidentally.   If the exclusion of those using  overlapping portions  of  the  surface of the,  highway  common  to  two different routes was also really intended, they should  have been  named  in the appended statement and  the  numbers  of their   stage   carriages  should  have  been   given.    No explanation  is forthcoming for this  omission.   Therefore, the  interpretation of the three schemes advanced on  behalf of  the  inter-state operators is more reasonable.   In  any case,  if the intention was really to exclude even the  user of  the  overlapping portions of notified routes  by  inter- state  operators,  we  do not see why  the  State  Transport Undertaking should have waited for so long and not  modified the scheme, as provided by Section 58E of the Act, and  made its intention clear instead of allowing litigation over this issue for such a long time. On  behalf  of  the appellants, reliance was  sought  to  be placed  strongly  upon  the meaning  assigned  to  the  term "route’  by  a  Division Bench of  this  Court  in  Nilkanth Prasad’s  case (supra), where the view of the Privy  Council in  Kelani  Valley Motor Transit Co.  v.  Colombo  Ratnapura Omnibus  Co.,(1)  was distinguished on the ground  that  the context  of  the ordinances before, the, Privy  Council  for interpretation  indicated  that  a  "route"  stood  for  "an abstract conception of a line of travel between one terminus and  another, and to be something distinct from the  highway traversed".   Nilkanth  Prasad’s case  (supra)  was  decided

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

before the insertion of the definition in Section 2(28A)  of the  Act before us.  In it reliance was placed upon  Kondala Rao  v. Andhra Pradesh State Road  Transport  Corporation(2) where the real question considered by this Court was whether a route could also be an area.  It was observed in  Nilkanth Prasad’s case (supra) (at p. 737-738)               "The   distinction  between  "route"  as   the               notional line and "road" as the physical track               disappears  in  the  working  of  Chap.   IVA,               because  you cannot curtail the route  without               curtaining  a  portion of the  road,  and  the               ruling of the Court to which we have referred,               would  also  show that even if the  route  was               different,  the  area at least  would  be  the               same.   The ruling of the  Judicial  Committee               cannot   be  made  applicable  to  the   Motor               Vehicles  Act, particularly Chap.  IVA,  where               the intention is to exclude private  operators               completely  from running over certain  sectors               or   routes   vested   in   State    Transport               Undertakings.  In our opinion, therefore.  the               appellants were rightly held to be disentitled               to  run  over those portions of  their  routes               which were notified as part of the scheme".               On  the  other hand, learned Counsel  for  the               inter-state operators relied strongly on H. C.               Narayanappa  & Ors. v. The State of  Mysore  &               Ors.,(3)  where  a  Constitution  Bench  of  5               Judges of this Court               (1) [1946] A.C. 338.               (2)   AIR 1961 S.C. 82.               (3) [1960] (3) S.C. R. 742.               503               interpreted  the very scheme dated  13-1-1959-               relating,  to the Anekal area which is one  of               the  three schemes for  interpretation  before               us.  It was held there (at p. 746)               "Statement  I  sets  out  the  description  of               fourteen   routes  with   their   intermediate               points,  route length, number of buses  to  be               operated and the maximum number of trips to be               performed  on each route".  By column  4  "the               number  of  existing stage carriages  on  each               route  with the number of trips and the  names               of  their  operators"  are  described  "as  in               statement  2 appended".  Statement 2 sets  out               the names and places of business of  fifty-six               operators  together with the, routes  operated               and  the  numbers of the stage  carriages  and               trips made by those operators.  In the  Anekal               area,  there are thirty-one routes, which  are               served by stage carriages operated by  private               operators, and by the approval of the  scheme,               only  fourteen of those routes are covered  by               the scheme". Hence,  it was urged that the term "route’ was used  in  the schemes  under  consideration with reference  to  a  service rendered   to  passengers  between  certain  termini.    Its notification  did  not, it is urged, ipso facto,  signify  a blanket-like  interdict  against the user of any  and  every portion  of  a  route  conceived of  as  a  prohibited  area reserved  for  the use of State owned carriages  only  which private  operators could not encroach upon or  invade.   The Act  itself  gives  power  to  nationalise  motor  transport services upon and not the Surfaces of public highways.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

Whatever  may be said about the correctness of the  decision of  this  Court  in Nilkanth Prasad’s case  (supra)  in  the context of the scheme before this Court for consideration in that case and the provisions of the Act as they stood  then, we  do  not think that the ratio decidendi of that  case  is applicable here.  Upon the contents of the schemes before us for interpretation we find that only operators named therein or  those  who seek to provide "services"  upon  the  routes mentioned  in  the schemes,. in the sense  that  they  carry passengers  travelling from one place. to  another  situated only  upon  the notified routes, could be  totally  excluded from using the highways which the notified routes cover.  We think  that  conditions were rightly imposed  by  the  final Transport  Appellate Authority on the permits of  interstate operators to bring out what it understood the scheme to mean in each case. The  result  is  that we do not  see  sufficient  reason  to interfere with the view taken by the High Court and  dismiss these appeals and the special leave petitions.  The  parties will bear their own costs in this Court. P.H.P. Appeals dismissed. -LI 77S-P.  CI/75 504