http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: C. P. C. MOTOR SERVICE, MYSORE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MYSORE AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/12/1961

BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.

CITATION:  1966 AIR 1661            1962 SCR  Supl. (1) 717  CITATOR INFO :  R          1969 SC 273  (5)  RF         1976 SC1731  (4)  RF         1986 SC 319  (8,10,12)

ACT:      Stage Carriage-State  Transport  Undertaking- Scheme-Validity-Routes  notified   under   scheme- Overlap between  notified route  and route left to private operators-Effect-"Route", meaning of-Motor Vehicles Act,  1939 (4  of 1939),  ss. 680, 68F(2) (c) (iii).

HEADNOTE:      Under a  scheme for taking over certain stage carriage services  to the  complete  exclusion  of private operators, which was approved and notified by the State of Mysore under the provisions of Ch. IV-A of  the Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1939,  it  was provided,  inter   alia:  "The   State   Transport Undertaking will  operate services to the complete exclusion of other persons (i) on all the notified inter-district routes  except  in  regard  to  the portions of  inter-district routes  Lying  outside the limits  of Mysore District, and also (ii) over the entire  length of  each of  the inter-district routes  Lying   within  the   limits   of   Mysore District." The  appellants who  were running stage carriage omnibuses  of  certain  routes,  some  of which   were   inter-district   and   inter-State, challenged the  validity  of  the  scheme  on  the ground, inter  alia, that between the routes which were taken over and some of the inter-district and inter-State routes  which were left to the private operators, there  was an  overlap  in  the  Mysore District, and  that those  routes which  were  not taken over  including the  portion  of  the  route Lying within  the Mysore  District should  not  be affected by  the scheme,  because "route"  meant a notional line  running  between  two  termini  and following a distinct course. ^      Held, that  the scheme  of the Motor Vehicles

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

Act, 1939, is that the word "route" meant not only the notional  line but  also the  actual road over which the  omnibuses run.  Under the Act the route or area  stand for the road on which the omnibuses run or portions thereof.      Kondala Rao  v.  Andhra  Pradesh  State  Road Transport Corporation,  A. I.  R. 1961  S. C.  82, relied on.      Kelani Valley  Motor  Transit  Co.,  Ltd.  v. Colombo Ratnapura  Omnibus Co.,  Ltd. [1946] A. C. 338, explained and distinguished.      In the present case, in view of the fact that the scheme  reserved all  the  routes  within  the Mysore   District    to   the    State   Transport Undertaking, the  private operators  would not  be able to  ply their  omnibuses on  that sector  and even those 718 routes which  were  inter-district  open  to  them would stand  pro  tanto  cut  down  to  only  that portion which lay outside the Mysore District.      Nilkanth Prasad v. The State of Bihar, [1962] Supp. 1 S. C. R. 717, followed.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeals No. 180 of 1961.      Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated  January 30,  1961, of the Mysore High Court, in Writ Petition No. 1326 of 1960.      S. T. Desai, B. R. L. Iyengar and K. P. Bhat, for the Appellant.      A. V.  Viswanatha Sastri,  R.  Gopalakrishnan and T. M. Sen, for the respondents.      1961. December  1. The  Judgment of the Court was delivered by      HIDAYATULLAH, J.-The  appellants,  C.  P.  C. Motor Service,  Mysore, question a scheme approved and  applied   by  the  State  of  Mysore  by  its Notification  No.   HD.  200/TMP/60   in   Gazette (Extraordinary) on  November 10,  1960.  They  had unsuccessfully moved the High Court under Art. 226 of Constitution,  and the  present appeal is filed with the special leave of this Court.      The appellants  were running  stage  carriage omnibuses on  18 routes,  and 14  such routes  are inter District.  On September 21, 1960, the second respondent, who  is the  General  Manager  of  the State Transport Undertaking, published a tentative scheme for  taking over  stage  carriage  services over 64  routes, which were shown in a schedule to the Notification,  to the  complete  exclusion  of private operators.  The  action  was  taken  under Chap. IV-A  of the Motor Vehicles Act, inserted by s. 62  of Act  100 of  1956. Objections  were duly filed by  the appellants,  which were heard by the Chief Minister,  who was the authority to hear the objections under the Rules, and they were disposed of by his order dated 719 November 7,  1960. The  scheme was  approved  with some modifications,  and it  was  published  along with the  order in  the Notification,  to which we

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

have already  referred. The  appellants, in  their petition  under  Art.  226  of  the  Constitution, raised many points before the High Court. The High Court, by  its judgment under appeal dated January 30, 1961,  dismissed the  petition.  Some  of  the grounds were  considered  in  that  judgment;  but others had  already  been  disposed  of  in  other petitions,  in   which  a   common  judgment   was delivered by  the High  Court also on the same day in Writ  Petition  No.  75  of  1960.  That  order concerned another  scheme for  the Hassan District of Mysore State.      In  the  appeal  before  us,  the  scheme  is challenged on  four grounds.  Shortly stated, they are, that the modified scheme is vague, indefinite and contradictory  and  does  not  carry  out  the orders of  the Chief Minister; that there has been non compliance  with the mandatory requirements of ss. 68C  and 68E  of the  Motor Vehicles Act; that the scheme  is destructive of co-ordination, which is the gist of efficient motor transport services; and  finally,   that  the   routes  on  which  the appellants  operated,  were,  in  any  event,  not affected by the monopoly on certain routes created in favour  of  the  State  Transport  Undertaking. These contentions  will be dealt with in detail by us in  this judgment,  and need  not be  stated at greater length at this stage.      Private  operators   in  the   Mysore   State including the appellants, plied their omnibuses on three different  kinds of routes. They were inter- District, inter-District  and inter-State.  By the scheme, the  State Transport Undertaking had taken over 64  routes, but  the exclusion of the private operators was  only in the Mysore District. In the approved scheme,  this is  stated in the following words: 720 "(d) Whether the services are  1. The State Transport  to be operated by the        Undertaking will ope-  State Transport Under-       rate services to the  taking to the exclusion,     complete exclusion  complete or partial, of      of other persons(i)  other persons or other-      on all the notified  wise.                        inter-district routes                               except in regard to                               the portions of inter-                               district routes lying                               outside the limits of                               Mysore District, and                               also (ii) over the en-                               tire length of each of                               the inter-district route                               lying within the                               limits of Mysore                               District.                            2. In so far as the noti-                               fied routes are con-                               cerned the State                               Transport Undertak-                               ing will operate with-                               out prejudice to rights                               of the existing valid                               permit-holders for                               operation of Stage

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

                             Carriage Services on                               the Inter-State routes                               only". In describing  the routes  in the  appendix to the scheme, these routes were shown with all the stops between the  termini, together  with the length of the  routes   in  miles,  the  maximum  number  of vehicles to  be operated  by the  State  Transport Undertaking and  by  private  operators,  and  the maximum number of daily services (return trips) to be provided in relation to each route by the State Transport   Undertaking   and   by   the   private operators.  The   columns  dealing   with  private operators in  respect of  the  maximum  number  of vehicles as  well as  the maximum  number  of  the daily services  were invariably  shown  as  "Nil". Section 68C  of the Motor Vehicles Act permits the taking over 721 of any  route or  area either  wholly or partly by the State Undertaking, and the action of the State Government has not been challenged as either ultra vires or  invalid. This is due perhaps to the fact that in a number of cases recently decided by this Court, schemes  of this  type have been held to be valid, and  the provisions  of Chap. IV-A, in view of the  amendments effected  by  the  Constitution (First Amendment)  Act, 1951,  in Art. 19(6), have been held  intra  vires  the  State  Legislatures. Those cases are also referred to by the High Court in the  judgment dealing  with the Hassan District scheme.      The first  question that  has been  raised is that  the   scheme  is   vague,   indefinite   and contradictory. The  vagueness, it  is said, arises from the  fact that  though under  s. 68C  certain particulars have  to be  mentioned, they  have not been so  mentioned in  the scheme.  This point  is illustrated by  referring to  the columns in which the routes  of private  operators  have  not  been shown; but it is stated by the respondents that on the routes  mentioned in  the scheme,  the private operators  have   no  omnibuses,   nor  any  daily services at  all. This,  in our  opinion,  is  the direct result  of taking  over of  certain routes, because if  those routes  are taken away, then the private  operators  would  not  be  running  their omnibuses on  those routes,  and  the  appropriate entry would  be as shown there, "Nil". The rest of the particulars  have been  given  in  the  scheme itself, including the kind of vehicles which would be run,  and their  seating  capacity,  equipment, etc. No doubt, the fares and the timings have been left out,  and the  State Transport  Authority has been given  the power  to fix  them. But that is a matter for  the  determination  of  the  transport authorities under  the Motor  Vehicles Act.  It is too  much  to  expect  fares  and  timings  to  be indicated  in   the  scheme,  because  each  route requires elaborate enquiry for fixing the fares as well as the timings of service. The scheme is 722 not required,  under the  law, to  deal with these matters, and we are satisfied that the omission of these details  from the  scheme does  not militate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

against it.      Similarly, the  argument that  the scheme  is destructive of  co-ordination  is  not  valid.  No doubt, the  private operators  cannot run  in  the Mysore District,  but can ply their omnibuses from the border of the Mysore District on routes, which were saved  to them,  and there  is likelihood  of transhipment from  State-owned  buses  to  private omnibuses at the border, where the routes operated by the State Transport Undertaking and the private operators bifurcate.  The transhipment, by itself, would not  connote a  lack of co-ordination. Under s. 68C,  the State  Transport Undertaking may take over whole  routes or  whole areas  or part of the routes or  part of  the areas  and if  the  scheme operates  partially,   some   transhipment   would obviously be  necessary, but  co-ordination  would still exist,  because where  the  State  omnibuses come to  a halt,  the private omnibuses would take the passengers  set down.  In our  opinion,  these grounds have  no validity,  in view of the partial nationalisation of  the  routes  involved  in  the State.      Really, the main attack against the scheme is that though  the Chief  Minister  had  upheld  the objection of  the appellants in an earlier portion of his  order, the direction which he contemplated giving  was   not  effectuated,   leading   to   a contradiction between  the order  and the approved scheme. The  Chief Minister,  in dealing  with the objection of  the private  operators, had observed in his order as follows:           "The Private  Operators  contended  that      exclusive operation  by the Mysore Government      Road Transport  Department  on  the  proposed      notified routes  might seriously  affect them      on certain  Inter-District routes  as well as      Inter  State   routes.  The  State  Transport      Undertaking 723      it   was    argued,    had    not    proposed      nationalisation of certain Inter-District and      Inter-State routes  lying outside  the limits      of Mysore  District,  though  a  few  of  the      notified routes  traverse portions  of Inter-      State  and  Inter  District  routes.  It  was      contended by the Objectors that if the Mysore      Government Road  Transport Department  was to      operate  certain   notified  routes   to  the      complete exclusion  of  other  operators,  it      would   adversely    affect   the   passenger      transport  system   on  certain  portions  of      Inter-State and  Inter-District routes  which      are notified.  There is  much force  in  this      contention and  accordingly,  the  Scheme  is      directed to be suitably modified." It was argued that the point which was made before the Chief  Minister was  that between  the  routes which were  taken over  and  some  of  the  inter- District and inter-State routes which were left to the private operators, there was an overlap in the Mysore District,  and that those routes which were not taken  over including the portion of the route lying within  the Mysore  District should  not  be held to  be affected  by the scheme. It was argued

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

that the Chief Minister in his order quoted above, accepted the  contention, and  gave directions for the suitable  modification of  the scheme,  but in carrying out  the modifications,  the  directions, quoted above, were not included, and they excluded the private  operators from  that portion  of  the route lying  within the  District of  Mysore, even though that  route was  different from  the route, which had been taken over.      In  our   opinion,  the  error  lies  in  not properly reading  the order of the Chief Minister. In  the   sentence,  "It   was  contended  by  the Objectors  that  if  the  Mysore  Government  Road Transport  Department   was  to   operate  certain notified routes to the complete exclusion of other operators, it would adversely 724 affect the  passenger transport  system on certain portions of  inter-State and inter-District routes which are  not notified," the words "which are not notified" qualify  not the  word "route"  but  the word "portions".  The direction  which was  given, effectuates the  later reading,  which was  really meant and  not the former, which is urged; because the qualifying phrase "which are not notified" has been unhappily put later. It is no doubt true that the other  reading is  also open,  and is  more in accord with  a grammatical construction. Where two constructions are  open, it  is proper to read the order harmoniously with the directions, because it could  not  have  been  intended  that  the  Chief Minister would express his opinion in one way, and include a  contradictory direction in another way. Indeed, the  intention was  to take over routes or parts of  the routes  lying in Mysore District and to notify  them as  within the exclusive operation of the  State Transport Undertaking. The exclusive operation of routes within the District meant that no other  omnibus belonging  to a private operator could  run   on  that   sector.   The   direction, therefore, clearly said that the route left to the private operators would be open to them beyond the borders of  the District,  but there were excluded from that  portion of  the route  which lay within the District.  In  Nilkanth  Prasad  v.  State  of Bihar, in  which we have delivered judgment today, we have  explained what  is meant by a "route" and ’a portion  of a route’, and we need not cover the same  ground.   In  our   opinion,  there   is  no contradiction  between  the  order  of  the  Chief Minister and the directions included by him in the concluding  part   of  his   order.  Indeed,   the directions carry out the order, if the order is to be read in the manner indicated by us.      It was next contended that the inter-District routes, which the appellants were operating, could not be said to be affected by the scheme at 725 all, because "route" means a notional line running between  two  termini  and  following  a  distinct course. This meaning was given to the word "route" by  the  Privy  Council  in  a  case  from  Ceylon reported in  Kelani Valley Motor Transit Co., Ltd. v. Colombo  Ratnapura Omnibus Co., Ltd. It is said that the  ruling applies in the present case where

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

what is  notified as  for exclusive running by the State Transport  Undertaking  is  not  a  definite portion of  a route of a private operator but is a different   route    altogether.   This   may   be illustrated by  algebraic notations.  If the route of the private operator was ABPQR, AB lying within the District  of Mysore  and PQR outside it, it is submitted that a route ABCDE may overlap the other route up to the point B but is not the same route, and, therefore,  cannot be  said to  be  notified. What is  meant by  a route  in the  Act  has  been elaborately discussed  by us in the other judgment delivered to-day. The only difference between this case and  the other  cases is that, whereas in the latter, the  notified route  was only AB, here the notified route is ABCDE.      The notification  of the  Government must  be read in  two parts.  The first is that part of the notification referring  to the  whole of the route which is  taken over,  and the second part is with respect to  the portion  of the route lying within the District  of Mysore.  The portion lying within the  District   of  Mysore   has   been   notified separately as  within the  exclusive operation  of the  State   Transport  Undertaking.  The  natural result of  it is  that private operators would not be able to ply their omnibuses on that sector, and by "route"  is meant,  as already stated, not only the notional  line but  also the  actual road over which the  omnibuses run.  We have  shown  in  the other  appeals  that  the  scheme  of  the  Ceylon ordinance was different. There, the 726 word  "route"   was  contracted   with  the   word "highway". In  the Motor  Vehicles Act,  the words used are  "route or area", and it has been held by this Court  that these  words mean the same thing: Kondala Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.      The scheme  of the  Act in  s. 68F(2)(c)(iii) also shows  that the Regional Transport Authority, in giving  effect  to  the  approved  scheme,  may "curtail the  area or  route covered by the permit in so  far as  such permit relates to the notified area or  notified route".  This makes the route or area stand for the road on which the omnibuses run or portions  thereof, and in view of the fact that the scheme  reserved all  the  routes  within  the Mysore District to the State Transport Undertaking even those  routes which  were inter-District open to the private operators would stand pro tanto out down to  only that portion, which lies outside the Mysore District. The result, therefore, is that no distinction can  be made  between the notification of a portion of the route of the private operators lying  within   the  Mysore   District   and   the notification of  a different  route, in  which the portion  within   the  Mysore   District  is  also included. What  we have  said in  the  other  case applied equally here.      It was  suggested during  the  argument  that there were  certain routes which did not cover any portion of  the notified  route but met that route at certain  point  or  points.  Reverting  to  the algebraic notations  given above, it was said that

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

route APBQR  would not  cover any  portion of  the notified  route   ABCDE,  and   must   at   least, therefore, be  outside the  scheme. No such route, however, was  pointed out  to us,  and we need not express any opinion on this part of the case or as to what would happen, if such a route existed. 727      Lastly, it  was contended  that  the  minimum number of trips and the minimum number of vehicles to be  put on  the road  with respect to any route has not  been indicated,  and that  this is  not a proper scheme,  because a  scheme  must  show  how comparatively more  efficient  service  is  to  be provided by  the State  Transport Undertaking. The earlier Rules  required  a  statement  as  to  the minimum and  maximum number  of vehicles to be put on a route, as also the minimum and maximum trips. It  was,  however,  held  by  this  court  that  a departure from  the minimum  number would mean the alteration  of   the  scheme,   necessitating  the observance of  all the  formalities for  framing a scheme. In  view of  this, the Rules were amended, obviating the  necessity of indicating the minimum number. The  Rule, as  it  now  stands,  has  been complied with, and there being no challenge to the Rule as  such, one  cannot say  that the scheme is defective on this account.      The result is that this appeal must fail, and is dismissed;  but in  the  circumstances  of  the case, we make no order about costs.                                  Appeal dismissed. 728