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