http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SARJOO PRASAD SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/09/1976

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH SHINGAL, P.N.

CITATION:  1977 AIR   24            1977 SCR  (1) 661  1977 SCC  (1)  34

ACT:            Nationalisation scheme of Bus Routes under s. 68C of  the         Motor   Vehicles  Act, 1939--Form A under Rule  94A  of  the         Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules read with Schedule II serial  No.         4, 5 and 6--Interpretation of--Whether it envisages  compul-         sory  existence of private operators side by side  with  the         State operation.              Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 68D--Scope of--Wheth-         er  there  should be a finding on each  and  every  separate         objection raised.              Monopoly of bus routes--Whether permitting the existing         private  operators  to operate till the date  of  expiry  of         their permits creates a monopoly.             Practice and procedure--Further plea taken in the  affi-         davit-rejoinder to the writ petition shall not be allowed to         be agitated.

HEADNOTE:              Fifteen routes including the route Ranchi-Daltonganj via         Kuru was nationalised by a scheme by the respondent State as         per  gazette  notification dated September  13,  1972.   The         scheme  concerned inter aria the area and the route  between         Ranchi  and  Daltonganj including Ranchi, Kuru  and  Chandwa         Daltonganj, being a rural service.  The scheme permitted the         existing  private operators to continue till the  expiry  of         their  permits.   The  appellants challenged  the scheme  by         way of an application under Art. 226 in the Patna High Court         which was dismissed in limine.         Dismissing the appeal by special leave the Court,             HELD:  (1  ) Rule 94A speaks of  particulars  of  scheme         proposing modification of an approved scheme prepared by the         Transport Corporation.  It is wrong to read serial Nos. 4, 5         and 6 in schedule II in Form, A which mentions the number of         State  carriages,  scheduled  to operate in  each  route  by         private operators and by State Transport Undertaking and the         number of  daily trips scheduled in each route by both these         operators, to suggest that even though . the route is natio-         nalised,  there  must  be private operators.   The  form  is         general. There may be on the same route both private  opera-         tors and State Transport or there may be only private opera-         tors  or there may be only State Transport.  The  form  does

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

       not  suggest  that even though the  route  is  nationalised,         there must be private operators. [662 F-G,-663 A--B]             (2)  Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act  states  that         the  State Government may, after considering the  objections         and  after  giving  an opportunity to the  objector  or  his         representatives and the representatives of the State  Trans-         port  Undertaking  to  be heard in the matter,  if  they  so         desire, approve or modify the scheme. No. finding of fact is         necessary on each and every separate objection.                                                        [663 D--E, G]             Capital  Multi Purpose Co-operative Society  Bhopal  and         others  v.  State of Madhya Pradesh [1967] 3 SCR  329,  fol-         lowed.             (3)  No monopoly is conferred on the  private  operators         who  were allowed to continue to operate.  Allowing them  to         operate  means they were allowed to continue to  operate  in         accordance with  the permits.  Operation  after  the  expiry         of  the  current permits would depend on the policy  of  the         Government  whether there would be any renewal and it  there         would  be  any  renewal, that should be in  accordance  with         law. [663 H. 664 A]             (4) Fresh plea by way of an allegation in the  affidavit         rejoinder to the writ petition when the State had no  oppor-         tunity to deal with such allegation cannot be allowed to  be         agitated. [664B]         662

JUDGMENT:         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 742 of 1974.                Appeal  by Special Leave from the Judgment and  Order         dated  15.2.1974  of the Patna High Court  in  C.W.J.C.  No.         215/74.                A.B.N. Sinha, K.K. Sinha, K.N. Deshav, S.K. Sinha and         Ugra Sankar Prasad for the appellant.         Pramod Swarup, for respondent No. 1          L.N.  Sinha, Sol. Genl., B. P. Singh and A. K.  Srivastava,         for  D. Goburdhan, for respondent No. 2.         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by              RAY  C.J.--This  appeal by special leave  is  from  the         judgment  dated  15 February 1974 of the Patna  High  Court.         The  High Court dismissed in limine the application  of  the         appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution.             The appellant challenged the scheme flamed under section         68C  of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 published in the  Bihar         Gazette On 13 September 1972.   The Bihar State Road  Trans-         port  Corporation published a scheme for nationalisation  of         fifteen  routes  including the route  Ranchi-Daltonganj  via         Kuru.   The scheme  concerned  inter alia the area  and  the         route  between  Ranchi and Daltonganj.   The  area  included         Ranchi, Kuru, Chandwa Daltonganj.   This is a rural service.         The  scheme stated that private operators would be  able  to         run their buses till the expiry of their current permits and         no  private bus would be operated by the  private  operators         after  the expiry   of   their permits.  The scheme  further         provided  that the Government bus   operators would  operate         in the area as shown in the Schedule.              Counsel  for  the  appellant contends  first  that  the         number  of buses  operated by private operators on  part  of         the  route were to be maintained in spite of the  scheme  of         nationalisation.  Reliance was placed   on Form A under Rule         94A  of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules in   in   support  of         the  contention.   Rule 94A speaks of particulars of  scheme         proposing modification of an approved scheme prepared by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

       Transport  Corporation.  In Schedule II at serial Nos. 4,  5         and  6  in Form   A are mentioned the number of  state  car-         riages  scheduled to operate   in each route (a) by  private         operators  and  (b) by State  Transport    Undertaking;  the         number  of  daily trips scheduled in each  route   (a)    by         private  operators and (b) by State  Transport  Undertaking;         and  the    maximum and minimum number  of  stage  carriages         proposed to be    operated in each route by the State Trans-         port  Undertaking to  the   exclusion of private  operators.         The contention of the appellant was   that serial Nos. 4,  5         and 6 indicated that in spite of nationalization of   route,         private  operators would be .allowed to operate on  part  of         the    route.    It was said that in the scheme  no  details         about  private operators had been given.  It was  also  said         that  in the scheme the numbers of services run by the  pri-         vate operators and by the Corporation   were wrongly  given.         It was said that 21 services were shown as run         663         by the Corporation and that the Corporation was providing 42         trips. The appellant contended that private operators ran 41         buses  and the route needed more buses aggregating 51.             It is wrong to read serial Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in Form A  to         suggest  that  even though the route is  nationalised  there         must  be private operators.   The Form is  general.    There         may  be on the same route both private operators  and  State         Transport,  or there may be only private operators or  there         may be only State Transport.             In  the  scheme the existence of  private  operators  is         specifically mentioned and-it is further mentioned that they         would  continue  to  ply till the expiry  of  their  current         permits.   We are unable to hold that even though the  route         is nationalised there must be private operators. The private         operators under the scheme in the present case were  allowed         to continue during the currency of their permits.    Whether         they  will be allowed to operate after the expiry  of  their         permits,  will  depend upon the policy  of  the  Government.         After the expiry of the  current permits if the policy  will         allow for renewal of permits of the  private operators, such         renewal will have to be in accordance  with law.             The scheme as modified and approved was published on  14         January 1974.   All the details are there.             The  second  objection  of the appellant  was  that  the         Minister did not give any reason in dealing with the  objec-         tions  of the appellant. Section 68-D of the Motor  Vehicles         Act states that the State Government may, after  considering         the objections and after giving an opportunity to the objec-         tor  or his representatives and the representatives  of  the         State  Transport Undertaking to be heard in the  matter,  if         they  so desire, approve or modify the scheme.   The  provi-         sions  of the section speak about the approval or  modifica-         tion of the scheme.   The Minister heard the objections  for         2 days.   The order of the Minister dated 24 September  1973         states that the scheme covering Ranchi-Bero Gumla was  modi-         fied and approved as follows:             "The existing services operated by the private operators         shall  not be affected and they would continue  to  operate.         No  fresh permit shall be granted to private  operators  and         the  Corporation  shall ply only Express  services  on  this         route.    The .other schemes  covering  Ranchi-Kuru-Chandwa-         Daltonganj   via   Bernbad,  (ii) Muzaffarpur  Motihari  and         (iii) Muzaffarpur-Darbhanga via Benibad are approved."             Approval  and modification of the scheme indicates  that         the  scheme is efficient and adequate.   No finding of  fact         is  necessary  on each and every  separate  objection.   See         Capital Multi Purpose Co-operative Society Bhopal and Others

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

       v. State of Madhya Pradesh(1).             The  third contention was that on the route  Ranchi-Bero         Gumla private operators were allowed to operate and  thereby         monopoly  was conferred on them..  The contention is  wrong.         No monopoly  is conferred on the private operators who  were         allowed to continue  to         (1) [1967] S.C.R. 329.         664         operate.   It means they were allowed to continue to operate         in accordance with the permits. Operation, after the  expiry         of  current permits, would depend on the policy of the  Gov-         ernment  whether  there would be any renewal  and  if  there         would be any renewal, that should be in accordance with law.             The fourth contention was that the hearing concluded  on         18  August, 1973 but the Government took into  consideration         letter  dated 23 August 1973 written by the State  Transport         Corporation.   This allegation was mentioned in the  affida-         vit-rejoinder.    The State had no opportunity to deal  with         the  allegation.  This allegation  is  not made in the  writ         petition.    The appellant, therefore, cannot be allowed  to         agitate on that ground.             All  the  contentions fail.   The appeal  is  dismissed.         Parties will pay and bear their own costs.         S.R.                                            Appeal  dis-         missed.         665