C. P. C. MOTOR SERVICE, MYSORE versus THE STATE OF MYSORE AND ANOTHER

(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

C. P. C. MOfOR SERVICE, MYSORE v.

THE STATE OF MYSORE AND ANOTHER

(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.)

Stage Carriage-State Transport Undertaking-Scheme-VaTidity-Routes notified under scheme-Overlap between notified route and route left to private operatore-Effect-" Route", meaning of-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939), ss. 68C, 68F(2)(c)(iii). LTnder 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 route lying within the limits of Mysore Distdct." 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 a]ia, 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 "rou.te" meant notional line running bet-ween two termini and following distinct course.

Held, that the scheme of the Motor Vehicles 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 siand 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 1'ransit 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 th~ routes within the Mysore District 10 the State Transport Undertaking, the private operators would not be able to ply their omnibuses on that sector and even thoac

DeumNr 1.

1961 C. P. C. M11or Snvic1, M:1sor1 •• Tiu S'4.t1 of M,Jor1

routes which were in•.cr-diSlrict oprn to th<m would stand pro lanto cut down to only that portion l•hich Jay oui.ide the Mysore District.

Nilkanth Prasad v. The State of Bihar, [1962] Supp. I

S. R. 717, followed.

C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals

No. 180 of 1961.

Appeal by special leave from the judgment

and order <lated January 30, 1961, of the Mysore High Court, in Writ Petition No. 1326 of 1961.1.

8. 1'. Desai, B. R. L. Iyengar and K. P. Bliat,

for the Appellant.

A. V. Viowanatlia Sastn", R. Gopal,akrislinan •md

T. M. Sen, for tho respondent.I'.

1961. December 1.

Tho Judgment of the

Court was <leli vered by

H!DAYATULLAH, J.-The appellants, C. P. C.

Motor Se1vicc, Mysore, question scheme approved and applied by the State of Mysore by itH Notifica-tion No. HD. 2G-0/T1\lP/60 in Gazette (Extraordinary) on Novemb<>r 10, llJ60. They had unbucccssfully moved tho High Court under Art. 226 nf Constitu-tion, and the present appeal is filed with the special leave of this Court.

The appellants were running stage tarriagc

omnibu~es (Jn 18 routes, and 14 such routes arc inter-District. On ~eptember 21, 1960, the second res-pondent, who is tho General Manager of the State Transport Undertaking, published tentative sohcme for taking over stage carriage services over 64 routes, which were shown in schedule to the Notification, to the oomplete 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. Objecti1ms were duly filed by the appel-lants, which were heard by the Chief Minister, who was the authority to bear tho objections under the Rules, and they were disposed of by his order dated

November 7, 1960. The scheme was approved with

some modifications, and it was published a.long with the order in the Notification, to which we have al-ready 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 com-mon 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 chal-lenged on four ~rounds. 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 compli-ance 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 cer-tain, 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 includ-

ing 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 ta.ken 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 :

C. P. C, M1tor SerDiu, Mysor1 •• Tht Slat• of M,,.,.,

Hida:1ctulloh J.

1141 C. P. 0. Mo1or 81rDU1, Mysor1 •• Tiu 81011 of J4ysor1 Biial41111l11Ji .1.

I. The State Transport Undertaking will ope-rate services to the complete exclusion of other person' ( i) on all the notified inter-district routes except in regard to the portions of inter-district routes lying outside the limit> of Mysore District, and also 1 ii) over the en-tire length of each of the inter-district route lying within the limits of M ysorc District. 2. In so far as the noti-fied routes arc con-cerned the State Transport Undertak .. ing will operate with· out prejudice to rights of the existing valid permit.holders for operation of Stag-c Carriage Services On the Inter-State routes only''.

•'(d) Whether the scrvic•.s are to be operated by the State Transport Under-taking to the exclusion, complete or pa1 tial, of other persons or other-wise.

In descriLini; tho routes in the appendix to the scheme, these routts were shown with all the stops between t.he termini, together with tho length of t.he rout es in miles, the maximum num her of vehicles to be opnated by the State Transport Undertaking and b.v private operators, aud the maximnm number of daily services (return trips) to be provided in relation to each route by the State Tran~port Undertaking and Ly tho private operators. The ~olumns dealing with private opera-tors in respect of the maximum number of vehicles as woll as the maximum number of the daily ser-vices were invari'~bly show11 as ":N°il". Section 68C of tho l\Iotor Vehicles Act permits the taking over

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 number of cases recently decidi:d by this Court, schemes of this type ha vc 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 virea the State Legislatures. Those cases are also referred to by the High Co11rt in the judgment dealing with the Hassan District scheme.

The first question that has been raised is that

the scheme is vague, indefinite and contradictorJ. The vagueness, it is said, arises from the fact that though under s. 68C certain particulars ha \'e 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 respon-dents 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 8'S 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 &Jating capacity, equipment, etc. No doubt, the fares and the timings have been left out, and the State Trans-port Authority has been given the power to fix them. But that is matter for the determination of the transport authorities under tho Motor Vehi-cles Act. It is too much to expect fa.res and timi-ings 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

C. P. lJ, Motor Service, · M ~sure v. The State:·af }tlysore ida_m.lull'14 J.

lHl C. ft! .. oj

C. P. C. Motor Strvic1. ft! yso16 .. TM S1011 oj \.frsort HiJaJal1'l/a J.

not required, under the la.w, to deal with these matters, and we are satisfied that the omission of these details from the scheme does not militate 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 cun ply their omnibuses from the border of the Mysore District on routes, which were saved to them, and there is likelihood of tran· shipment from State-owned buses to private omni-buses at the border, where the routes operated by the State Transport Undertaking and the private operators bifurcate. The transhipment, by itself, would not connote lack of co-ordination. Under s. 680, 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 bti necessary, but co-ordination would still exist, because where the State omnibuses come to halt, the private omibuses would take the passengers set down. In our opinion, these grounc!B 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 contradic-tion between the order and the approved scheme. The Chief Minister, in dealing with the objection of the private operators, had o bsl'rved 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 38 well 38 Inter-State routes. The State Transport Undertaking

(1) S.C.R.

it was argued, had not proposed nationaliait-tion of certain Inter-District and Inter-State routes lying outside the limits of Mysore District, though few of the notified routes traveroe· portions of Inter-State and Inter-Diatrict 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 adverRely 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 that the Chief Minister in his order quoted above, accepted the contention, and' gave directio11s 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 dilferent from the route, .which had been taken over.

In our opinion, the error lies in not properly read-

ing the order of the Chief Minister. In the sentence, "It was contended by the Objectors that if the My-sore Government Road Transport Department .was to operate certain notified routes to tl.e complet.e exclusion of other operators, it would advers~ly

1961 C. P. C. Mo1., Snuiu, MJs•11 ... Thi Stall •J M ysor1 HiiayaMt.h J.

1'61 0. P. C. Mot., Struict, M.JsO't v. Thi SuU1 of Mysort Hiduyalullah J.

724 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [11162] SUPP.

affect the passenger transport syi;t{'m on certain portions of inter-State and inter-District routes which are not notified," the words "which are not notified" qualify not the word "routes" but the word "portions". The direction which was given, elfectuaks the latter 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 alsn open, and is more in accord with grammatical Jonstruction. 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 contradictory dirertion in another way. lndted, tho in~ntion 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 exlcusive operation of routes within the District meant that no other omnibus belonging to 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 bor-ders of the District, but they were excluded from that portion of the route which lay within the District. In N if,/r,a'fllA Prasad v. State of Bihar, ( [1]) in which we have delivered judgmennt today, we have explained what is meant by 'route' and •a portion of route', and we ntied not cover the. same ground. In our opinion, there is no contra-diction between the order of the Chief Minister and the direotions included by him in the conclud-ing part of his order. Indeed, the directioll8 oarry 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 appellimts were operating, ooald not be said to be afl'eoted by the scheme at (I) p. 717&Dto.

all, because "route" means a. no~ional line running h'.}t1veen two termini and following a. distinct course. This meaning was given to the word "route" by the Privy Council in 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 ca~e where what is notified as for exclusive running by the State Transport Undertaking is not definite portion of route of private opera.tor but is a. dHftirent route altogether. This may be illustrated by algebraic notations. If the route of the priv11te opera.tor was ABPQR, AB lying within the District of Mysore and PQR outside it, it is submitted that route ABODE may overlap the other route up ~o the point but is not the same route, and, therefore, cannot be said to be notified. What is meant by route in the Act bas been elaborately discussed by us in the other judgment delivered to.day. The only difference between this case and the other oases is· that, whereat! in the latter, the notified route was only AB, here the notified route is ABODE.

The notification of the Government must be

read in two parts. The first is that pa.rt of the noti-fication referring to the whole of the route which is Ui-ken over, and the second part is with respect to the portion of the route lyini; within the District of Mysore. '1 he portion lying within the Di<Jtrict of Mysore ha.a been notified separately as within the exclusive operation of the State Transport Under-taking. The natural result of it is that private operators would not be able to ply th~ir omnibuses on that sector, and by "route" is meant, as already stq.t -cl., not only the notional line but also the actual rua.•l nver which the omnibuses run. We have shown iu the other appeals that the s<iheme of the Ceylon Ordinanoo wa.~ different. · There, the (I) [1946] A.C. 138.

JBIJ

C. P. C; Mot., Beroiu, i11 :11011 Till Slate "· of M1sor1 HidaJawllah J.

19'1 C. P. C. Motor S~iu, M71or1 v. TIJ< StaJ1 of M71111 Hidayatttll•h J.

word "route" was contrasted with the ' ord "high-way". In the Motor Vehicles Act, the 1ords used are "route or area", and it has been Id by this Court that the1e words mean the s me thing : Kondala Rao v. Andhra Pradeah State ROI l Tramporl Corporation (').

The scheme of the Act In s. 68F(: J(c)(iii) aleo

shows that the Regional Transport A1 thority, in p:iving effect to tho approved scheme, n: ~y "curtail the area or route covered by the permi in so far as such permit relates to the notified ar !a or noti-fied route". This makes the route or ar1 stand for the road on which the omnibuses run or portions thereof, and in view of the fact that the scheme re. served all the routes within the Mysore District to the State Transport Undertaking. even ;hose routes which were inter-District open to the private opera. tors would stand pro tanto cut 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 portion of the route of the private operators lying within the My10re District and the notification of different route, in which tho portion within the Mysore District is also included. What we have said in the other case applies equally here,

It was suggested during the argument.a 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 route APBQR would not cover any portion of the notified route ABODE, and must at least, therefore, be out-side th scheme. No such route, however, W'MI point-ed out to us, and we need not expreas any opinion on this part of the case or as to what would happen, if such route existed.

(1) A.I.R.1961 S.C.82.

Lastly, it was contended that the minimum number of trips and the minimum number of vehi· cles to be put on the road with respect to any routti has not been indicated, and that this is not proper scheme, because a. scheme must show how compa.· ratively more efficient service is to boi provided by the State Transport Undertaking. The earlier Rules required statement as to the m,inimum and maxi· mum number of vehicles to be put on 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 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 \tith, 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.

1101 C. P, C. Molar Snvict, Mysor1 v. Thi Stale of M ysort Hidayatullah, J,