MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus THE MYSORE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS.

MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

THE MYSORE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS. May 17, 1974

(M. H. BEG ANDY. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Ac,, Sec. 68C-Jnter-stare operator3 wh~ther prohibited ireni plyins: vehicles on intra-state routes-lt1eani11~ of route and areu--1 ntrepreta~io11 of sche111e-Con1plete exclusion lvhether can be implied.

Certain Intra-state rcutes were nationalised under Chapter IV-A of' the Motor \'chicles A~t. There wei;e three approved schemes of nationalisation namely Anekal Scheme, Gulbarga Scheme and the Bangalore Scheme. Parts of these Intra-state routes over-lapped inter-state routes over which private transporters were granted permit9 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 total exclusion. The preamble to the Bangalore Scheme. however, mentions the complete exclusion of all other operators from certain routes. The Anckal Scheme gives the te1mini with intern1ediate J---.Oints. The names of the Inter-Sta-te o~rators have not been 1nentioned in any of these three Schemes. The schemes show that the term "route'' is used in each scheme for '5ervices between two termini,

The appellant Corporation objects to the permits granted to tho Inter-State transporters in so fai: as they cqvcr 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 scheme under Section 68(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, pro-E viding that Road Transport Services in general or in any particular class, in Felation to any area or route ol portion thereof should be run and operated t)y the State Transport Undertaking whether to the exclusion, complete or partial of other persons or otherwise. This power includes the power to ex-('}ude even inter-state motor operators altogether from part of any notified route. [494GJ ·

(2) Section 68C howe,·er requires as 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 oth~ particulars as may be prescribed. Each scheme has to be pub-lished in the Official Gazette. scheme finally emerging after opportunities arc given for objections by persons interested. (495B-C]

(3) scheme which totally excludes inter-state private operators fron1 using any part of notified route must make the intention to do that clear. The Act makes distinction between notification of an area and of route. An area may cover number of routes. route is not merely the physical ~urface covered by the highway to be traversed, but connot·~<> the abstra:t concept of line of travel. difference in the two termini \Vill make two routes different even if there is an overlappinp: surface of the road common to two routes. Unless scheme clearly indicates that the user of e~ery portion of highway covered by an intra-state notified "route" so conceived i'> prohibited. a·lso to an Inter-state motor vehic1e operator, who really plies on different rouh~ inasmuch as his terinini are bound to be different from those of an intra-state rou~e, the inter-5.tate op~ raters n1ay not be complete~y debarred from the user of the over-H hipping part of an inter-state route. mere 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·Hl

(4) The rules require that existing operators on each roui~ n1ust be named and the numbers of th~ir vehicles must be gi_ven before they could be deemed to be excluded from any part of rgute. Unless their names are mentioned they cannot .come fonvard to object as persons i.~ffected. [497D-E]

(.S) The Inter-state operators were not meant to be denied tbe 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 e;q;lusion but this exclusion seemsr to be in respect of operators providing services between the termini mentioned there and not merely using overlapping portions, of the notified rules incident~l)y. No explan~tion is forthcoming as to why names and the numbers of the inter-state transporters \Vere not mentioned in the scheme. [50JC-F]

Nilkanth Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar, [1962] I S.C.R. 728, Kelani Valley Motor Transit Co. v. Colombo Ratnapura Ontnibus Co. [1946] A.C. 338' and Kondala Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, A.LR. 1961 S.C. 82, distinguished.

'av1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1755 to 1756 of 1969, 362 to 363 and 1918 to 1920 of 1970 and 490 t<> 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, 1228-31 1233/69 and 3910, 3913, 3921, and 3932/68, 1189 and 1192/69, 1234/69, 2068-2070/69 respectively and special leave petitions Nos. 2015 to 2112 and 2408 to 2412 of 1969. From the Judgment and order dated I Ith November, 1969 and 16th June, 1969 of the Mysore High Court in W.P. Nos. 3908, 3912, 3923, 3925, 3926, 3230, 3933 anq 3933/ 68 and 2067, 2078 and 2080.2082/68.

Shyam/a 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. A.char 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 common ques-tion of Jaw 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 tho Mot:>c V chicles Act, I 939 (h~reinafter referred to as 'the Act'), of transport services on certain routes lying within the State of Mysore. But, parts of these intra-state 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

State Road Transport Corporation objects to these permits in so far as they oover overlapping portions of intra-state routes. The common question of law which arises may be formulated as follows:

"Can permit be granted to an Inter-State Transport Opera-

tor for the whole of his route despite the fact that part of the route ov2rlaps part of notified intra-State route" ?

. There can be no doubt that the Mysore State Transport Under-B talcing has the power to frame scheme under section 68C of Chapter IV of the Act, providing "in the public interest that road transport services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to mea 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 part of any notified route. (See: Nilkamh Prasad & Ors. Vs. Staie of Bihar( [1 ]). Standard Motor Union Pw Ltd. Vs. State of Kera/a & Ors('); S. Abdul Khader Saheb Vs. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribuna! & Ors.(") The Transport authorities have no power to deviate from or modify tk terms of approved schemes which have the force of law. They can issue or otherwise deal with permits only in accordance with the pro-D visions of the schemes which may be either partial or total exclu-sion 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 condition precedent to any exclnsion or private operators nnder scheme of nationalimtion 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 oand also "in such manner as the State Govt.. may direct". scheme finally emerges, after opportunities given under Section 680 of the Act for objections by persons interested in providirig transport facilities as wen as by local and police authorities within the area or. upon the routes proposed to be covered by oa 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 Undertalcing under Section 68E of the Act in accordance with the procedure laid down by Sections 68C and 680 of the Act.

The power of the State Transport Undertaking to prohibit the use of >any portion of route by Inter-state operators bas not been ques-ti~ned before us,. ~evertheless, it may be pertinent to point out that this Court thus md1cated m Saghir Ahmed & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,(') 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 right (1) [1962](!} Suppl. S.C.R. 728. (2) [1969]{1) S.C.R. 464. (3) AIR 1973 S.C. 534. (4) [1955] I S.C.R. 707, 717.

created by the Motor Vehicles Act. The right exists anterior to any legislation on this subject as an incident of public rights over 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 accep-ted that member of the public is entitled to ply mother vehicles on the public road as an incident of his right of passage over highway, the question is really immaterial whether he plies 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 afieeted thereby and we cannot agree wil!J the learned Advocate-General that the user of public road for purposes of trade is an extraordi-nary 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 dis-tinction between the right to use road which may be part of Q. notified "route" and the right to ply motor vehicles on hire upon " "route" for which permit has to be obtained under the Act. Notifi-cation of route under scheme prevents issue of permits contrarv to the scheme for the route. Assuming for the purposes of the cas~:, before us, that the State Transport Undertaking can totally exclude imer-statc private operators from using any part of notified route, scheme which has that effect must, at least, make the intention to do ihat clear before it can prevent th-e exercise of an otherwise legal ricllt to ply motor vehicles for hire on public highway subject to regula· tion of this kind of user by permits issues under the Act. The ques-tion is, in our opinion, one of interpretation of the scheme formulated in each case. Before interpreting each of the three schemes mentioned above, we wi_ll refer to the relevant provisions which have bearing on. questions of interpretation of the schemes and of the particulars gf\·en therein. As each scheme of natiorralisation is to be prepared in public inter-est, Section 68C requires the State Transport Undertaking to give particulars "of the nature of services proposed to be rendered by it". distinction is made between notification of an "area" and of •·route". An area, which has to be notified under Section 2(i) of the Act, may cover number of routes. route, as defined by the in-sertion of (28A) made by the Act 56 of 1969, in Section 2 of the Act, is "a line of travel which specifies the high-way which may be traversed by motor vehicle between one terminus and another". What-ever may have been the meaning of the word "route" before this inser-tion, it appears to us that, after this cJarification, •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 "route". The two concepts me now so interlinked that route would not be properly indicated by merely specifying the high-way which may be traversed without giving its two termini. And, difference in the two termini will make two routes different even if there is an overlap" ping surface of the road common to routes. In other wordo, the two

termini are an essential part of the concept of route. Notification of routes takes place for purposes of nationalisation of transport servtces on the routes. The routes arc not nationalised as physical surface~ of notified areas reserved for use by State owned vehicles only, but what is nationalkcd is the provision of certain transport services on those routes.

Unless " scheme clearlv indicates that the user of every portion of highway covered by an infra-state notified route is prohibit·id also to an inter-state motor vehicle operator, who really plies on different "route'' inasmuch as its termini arc bound to be different from those of an intra-state route, the inter-state operator may not be completely d:barred from the user of the overlapping part of an intra-state route. mere physical overlapping of the two may not be enough to exclude the private inter-state operators by any nec·cssary implication. II the intention is to exclude such user by an operator of another route part of which over-laps notified route, that intention must be made clear and unequivocal by the scheme in order to have that effect.

Section 68C 11lso mentions other particulars of 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 :

"l. Every scheme or modified scheme for passenger transport service shall contain the following particulars :-

1. The area in rdation to which the scheme is proposed.

2. Whether City /Town service or moffusil service.

3. The route or routes (with their starting points, ter-

mini, 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 carri-ages proposed to be operated by the State Transport Under-taking 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 perfor-med on each route.

7. Number of vehicles intended to be kept in reserve to maintain the service and to provide for sp·;;cial occasions".

With regard to the above mentioned particu~ars, 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 nutnbcrs of their vehicles must b2 eiven before thcY 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 service or plying on the notified route, they could not be expected to come forward to object as persons affected. Hence_

it is submitted, if the State Transport Undertaking itself treated them as_ JX'rsons unaffected by nationalisation of transport services on cer-t·a~ mtra-state routes, its intention would appear to be to leave un-touched or preserve the rights of inter-state operators who were already there merely to use parts of notified routes. The argument was that the mter-state operators were, by clear implication, permitted by each scheme to use overlapping parts of notified intra-state routes. They were, it was urged, thus mrnnt to be excluded from the purview of the prohibition in each scheme.. In so?Je of the cases before us the Regional Transport Officer had himself either granted or renewed the permits of the inter-state opera-tors. Jn other cases, where the Regional Transport Officer had rejec-ted the applications of the inter-state operators concerned, the opera-tors had succeeded in ob~aining 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 bad 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 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 Corpo-ration had impliedly admitted before the Transport authorities that inter-state 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 overlappin~ 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.

It may be mentioned here th•at 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 juris-diction to grant permits to inter-state 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 passangers through them but not to provide ser-vices for passengers to or from any place falling upon any portions of the notified routes. It was submitted, on behalf of the appellant Cor-poration, that all that the Transport authorities could do w~s to ll!v" .effect to the provisions of each scheme but not to do anythmg which may be •a modification of the scheme.

Although, the actions of the Transport authorities. and the conduct or concession of the Manager of the Corporation may be relevant in considering whether scheme was so framed as to clearly convey to the officials of the Corporation 11nd to the '.f~a_nsport aut~o­rities concerned that it was scheme of total proh1b1tJon extendmg to even user of any portion of an o~erlapping noti!ied ro~te by an inter-state operator, yet, the real quest10n to be considered 1s whether

r ' ~ ,, ...

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 des-crction of the High Court to refuse to allow 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 he 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 prohibi-tion of even the case of 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 ar" 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 special bearing on the question under consideration.

Jn the Anekal Scheme, the preamble does not state that the scheme is of total exclusion. Clauses 3 to 1 7 of the approved scheme arc stated as follows :

"3. The route or routes (with their start-As in st;1.te111ent J appended ing points, tenn1n1, intermediate stations and route (length) ln which the State Transport Under-taking \viii introduce its services to the exclusion of private operators.

4. The number of existing stage carria-As in statement 2 appended. ges- on each route with the nuinber of trips and the names of their operators.

5. The maximum and n1inimum number (a) Maximum and rninin1un1 nun1ber of stage carriages to be operated by or stage carriages to be operated· !he State Road :rranspor~ Undertak-As in Statement I appended ' tng to the exclusion of private opera- (b) Type and Seat in-; capacity of each tors in relation to each route and the vehicle :-'" ty~ and seating capacity of each Semi-saloon, single decker~. The ve1ucle. seating capacity of each vehicle is 36 to 45 seats.

6. The maximum nun1bcr of trips to As in statement t appended. be performed on e1ch route.

7. The number of vel~ides to be, kept in 25 per cent of the operatin: fteet." reserve to ma1nta1n the servtccs and to provide for special occasions.

In the. <;Julbarga s~heme, the preamble states that approval is given to the ongmally published proposals subject to certain modifications One of the modifications is that the words "or any portion thereof;

wherever they appear in column 2 of the statement appended to the scheme published by the General Manager shall be deleted. The rele-vant clauses 3 to 7 read as follows :

As in statement appended.

.. 3. The route or routes-(with their start-ing points •. termini, intermediate stations and route length) in v,:hich the State Road Transport Undcrt1k· ing shall introduce its services, to the exclusion of private operators.

·At present, only the l\.1ysore Govern-ment Road Transport D~partm~nt is operating service on these rout\!S, and the number or existing stage carriages and the number of trips are 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.

(a) Maximum and. minimum number of stage carriages to be operated;

5. The maximum and minimum num-ber of stage carriages to be operated by the State Road Transport Un-dertaking to the exclusion of private operators in relation to each route and the type an:i -s~ating c1pi:ity of each vehicle. .. ,

As in statement appended.,·

(b) Type and seating· capacity of each . vehicle. · S.!mi-saloon, singk:-d'.!ck.!rs. The seating capacity or ea~h vehicle is 26 to. 5 5 seats.

As in statement appended.

6. The maximum number of trips !o· be performed on each route.

7. The number of vehicles to be kept, T\venty-five per-cent or the in reserve and to maintain the ser-ating fleet ... vices to provide for special occasions.

opcr~

The preamble to the Bangalore scheme mentions the following modifications_ of the ·original proposals: ·

"(a) that the passenger transport servires on the routes appearing at sl. Nos. 1 to 22 am! 24, 25. 26, 27 and 53 of the statement appended including services between any two places therein should be run and op.-:rated by the State Transport Undertaking to the · complete exclusion of other operators :

(b) Subject to (a) above, the State Transport Under-takjng should operate services on the remaining routes appearing in the statement appended between the two specified terminals only, to the complete ex-clusion of all other operators, excluding the inter-mediate routes;"

The relevant clauses 3 to 7 arc given here as follows:

-·3. Tbc route or routes (with their starting (a) The passenger transport ser-points, termini, intern1ediate sta. vice" on the routes appearing at tioos and route length) in which the SI. Nos. 1 to 22, and 24, 25, 26, 27. State Road Transport Undertaking 39 and 53 of the statement sball introduce its services to the ex-appended including services bet-clusion of private operators. \Veen any two places therein should be run and operated by II the. State. Transport Undertaking to the complete ·exclusion. of other ·operators; -

(b) Subject to (a) above, the State Transport Undertaking shouJd operate services on the remaining routes app~aring in the statcn1ent appended between the two speci-fied terminals only to the complete exclusion of all other operators, excluding the intern1ediatc routes:

At present, only the !\1ysore Govern-ment Road Transport Department is their oper-operating services on these routes, and in the nu1nbcr of existing stage carriages and the number uf trips are as in statement appended. · 1nini111un1 (a) tvlaximum and minimun1 nun1ber of to b..: op.!-stag.! c:trriag~s to b~ operated; Transport As in the statem'ent appended. (b) Typ~ and seating capacity of each vehicle ... Semi-saloon, single-deckers, the seating capacity of t:ach vehicl~ is 26 to 35 . seats.

4. The number of existing stage car-riages on each route with the nu1nbcr of trips and the names of their oper-operators.

5. (u) The n1aximu1n and 1nini111un1 nLunber of stage carriag~s to b..: op.!-ratcd by the State Road Transport Undertaking to the exdu.;ion of private operators in relation to each route and

(b) tile type and seating capacity of each vehicle.

6. The n1aximu1n nu111ber of trips to be As in statement appended. perforn1ed on each route.

7. The number of vehicles to be kept Twenty-five per cent of the opcratin~ in reserve to maintain the services fleet." and to provide for special occasions.

It may be mentioned here that clauses 3 and 4 of the three schemes ore 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 mentioired in clause 3 (in purported compliance of sub rule 3) gives the termim with intermediate points thereby indicating that the exclusive servke on each route is intended to be one which takes place only bet ween the termini given there and not as mere incident of service between other termini. The second statement mentioned in clause 4 (in pur-ported compliance of sub-rule 4) gives the number of the existing stage carriages and the names of their operators serving the prohi-bited routes indicated in terms of their termini. The 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 he affected or who could be conipcnsated under Section 68G after necessary modification or can-cellation 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 pro-hibited the user of the overlapping route. Lastly, as regards the Banga-lore scheme, the case of the appellant Corporation may seem better inasmuch as the words used there are : "the complete exclusion of all

other operators excluding the intermediate routes''. But, even here, the exclusion appears to be only of operators providing services bet-ween 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 overlappin!J portions of notified routes by inter-state operators, we do not sec why the State Transport Undertaking should have waited for so long and not modified the scheme, as provided by Section SSE of the Act, and made its intention clear instead of allowing litigation over this issue for such Jong time.

On behalf of the appellants, reliance was sought to be placed strongly upon the meaning assigned to the term "route" by 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[1]) was distinguished on the ground that the context of the ordinances before the Privy Council for interpretation indicated that "route" stood for "an abstract concep-tion of line of travel between one terminus and another, and to be something distinct from the highway traversed". Nilkanth Prasad's case (supra) was decided before the insertion of the definition in Section 2(28'A) of the Act before us. In it reliance was placed upon Kondala Rao v. ndhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpora-tion,(') where the real question considered by this Court was whether 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 cuqail the route with-out curtailing 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 Slate 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 scf.:.!n1e".

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the inter-state operators II relied strongly on H. C. Narayana,rypa & Ors. v. The Sta/le of Mysore & Ors., ( [3 ]) where Constitution Bench of 5 Judges of this Court

(l) [1946] A.C. 338. (2) AIR 1%1 S.C. 82.

(3) [1960] (3}S.C.R. 742.

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 per· formed on each route". By column 4 "the number of exist-ing stage carriages on each route with tbe 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 service rendered to passengers between certain termini. Its notification did not, it is urged, ipso facto, signify blanket-like interdict against the user of any and every por· tion of route conceived of as prohibited area reserved for the use Clf State owned carriages only which private operators could not en· croach upon or invade. The Act itself gives power to nationalise motor transport services upon and not the surfaces of public highways.

Whatever may be said about the correctness of the decision of thi~ Court in Nilkanth Prasad's case (supra) in the context of the schemo 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.

Appeals dismissed.