# <164 STANDARD MOTOR UllilON PVT. LTD v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS

- **Citation:** [1969] 1 S.C.R. 464
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-07-30
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 921 of 1968
- **Bench:** R. S. BACl!AWAT, K. S. Hegde
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/164-standard-motor-ullilon-pvt-ltd-v-state-of-kerala-ors-4418
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Motor Vc/1ic/cs Act, (4 of 1939), Ss. 68C, 68D am!
68E-Schcme
.·1ationc.lising route overlapped by other route operated by private opera1ors-Sche111e if of co111plete exclusion or par.rial exclusion-Scheme modi-
/;~·d lViflrout expressly ·n1odifying earlier sc:hc1nc-Validi1_.,.·.
Kerala ;\1oror Ve/zicles (State Transport Undertaking)
Rules,
1960
r. 3-
'I'llc rc1;pond\!nt State approved a scht:mc in forru II for nationalisation
of certain specific routes after complying y,·ith the provisions of ss. 68C
and 68D of the Motor \'chicles Act, 1939.
The scheme excluded all
private o~r;1to'rs from the notified routes.
The notified rou1es formed
part of high\\·ays, having common road sectors and private operators continued to operate on the highways. The appellant unsuccessfully filed writ
petition in the High Court to quash the scheme. In appeal to this Court,
the appellant challenged the validity of the schc-me on the grounds that (i)
the scheme \Vas a complete excluo;ion scheme and should
have been in
form I and us it was in form II it was in contravention of Ruic 3 of the
Kerala lllotor Vehicles(State Transport Undertaking) Rules, 1960 read
\Vith s. 68C of the Act; and (ii) since there were earlier schemes. they
could not be modified by the impugned scheme \\ithout complying "'·ith
the provisions of s. 68E. Dismissing the ~1ppeal, thi5 Court :
HELD: (i) From the language of s. 68C and r. 3 it appears that a
complct-;! exclusion scheme in relation to any area of route would be a
scheme v.·hicb cornplerely excludes the existing road services. of private
operators on the area or route in question. 1·he route includes the highway
over it runs.
If other existing services are allo\\·cd to continue over a
pan of the high\vay relatiilg to the notifi~d route, the scheme is not one
of complete exclusion.
The irnrugncd scheme di<l not exclude the road transport services
of other cxbting routes which ovcrlapred many sectors of the high\vays
relating to the notified routes.
In spite of the scheme the puhlic could
get ~rvice'i on the common road sectors from the private ,operators who
continued to operate the high\v,1ys.
1·herefore, the scheme wa<; not in
complete exclusion of exi-;ting road transpon services in respect of notified
routes and was not required to be in form I. [466 G-H. 467 DJ
Nilka11th Prasad & Ors. "· State of Bi/iar. [1962) Suppl. 1 S.C.R. 728
at 737: Kanda/a Rao v. Andhra Pradesh S.T.C. Corporation, A.J.R. 1961
S.C. 82, followed.
(ii) On the promulgation of the new scheme the earlier
schemes
stood modified pro tanto.
As the procedure laid down in
ss. 68C and
680 were followed the conditions of s. 68 \Vere satisfied. S. 68E does not
require that the ncv.· scheme should expressly say that it cancels or modifies the earlier schemes. [467 GI

## Text

<164
STANDARD MOTOR UllilON PVT. LTD.
v.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
July 30, 1968
[R. S. BACl!AWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J
Motor Vc/1ic/cs Act, (4 of 1939), Ss. 68C, 68D am!
68E-Schcme
.·1ationc.lising route overlapped by other route operated by private opera1ors-Sche111e if of co111plete exclusion or par.rial exclusion-Scheme modi-
/;~·d lViflrout expressly ·n1odifying earlier sc:hc1nc-Validi1_.,.·.
Kerala ;\1oror Ve/zicles (State Transport Undertaking)
Rules,
1960
r. 3-
'I'llc rc1;pond\!nt State approved a scht:mc in forru II for nationalisation
of certain specific routes after complying y,·ith the provisions of ss. 68C
and 68D of the Motor \'chicles Act, 1939.
The scheme excluded all
private o~r;1to'rs from the notified routes.
The notified rou1es formed
part of high\\·ays, having common road sectors and private operators continued to operate on the highways. The appellant unsuccessfully filed writ
petition in the High Court to quash the scheme. In appeal to this Court,
the appellant challenged the validity of the schc-me on the grounds that (i)
the scheme \Vas a complete excluo;ion scheme and should
have been in
form I and us it was in form II it was in contravention of Ruic 3 of the
Kerala lllotor Vehicles(State Transport Undertaking) Rules, 1960 read
\Vith s. 68C of the Act; and (ii) since there were earlier schemes. they
could not be modified by the impugned scheme \\ithout complying "'·ith
the provisions of s. 68E. Dismissing the ~1ppeal, thi5 Court :
HELD: (i) From the language of s. 68C and r. 3 it appears that a
complct-;! exclusion scheme in relation to any area of route would be a
scheme v.·hicb cornplerely excludes the existing road services. of private
operators on the area or route in question. 1·he route includes the highway
over it runs.
If other existing services are allo\\·cd to continue over a
pan of the high\vay relatiilg to the notifi~d route, the scheme is not one
of complete exclusion.
The irnrugncd scheme di<l not exclude the road transport services
of other cxbting routes which ovcrlapred many sectors of the high\vays
relating to the notified routes.
In spite of the scheme the puhlic could
get ~rvice'i on the common road sectors from the private ,operators who
continued to operate the high\v,1ys.
1·herefore, the scheme wa<; not in
complete exclusion of exi-;ting road transpon services in respect of notified
routes and was not required to be in form I. [466 G-H. 467 DJ
Nilka11th Prasad & Ors. "· State of Bi/iar. [1962) Suppl. 1 S.C.R. 728
at 737: Kanda/a Rao v. Andhra Pradesh S.T.C. Corporation, A.J.R. 1961
S.C. 82, followed.
(ii) On the promulgation of the new scheme the earlier
schemes
stood modified pro tanto.
As the procedure laid down in
ss. 68C and
680 were followed the conditions of s. 68 \Vere satisfied. S. 68E does not
require that the ncv.· scheme should expressly say that it cancels or modifies the earlier schemes. [467 GI
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 921 of
1968.
Appeal by specii;·, leave from the judgment and order dated
January 8, I 968 of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No. 79
of 1967.
A
B
..
c
D
•
E
F
G
II
A
B
-.
c
D
E
,
F
G
H
..
MOTOR UNION v. KERALA (Bachizwat, J.)
465
S. V. Gupte and A. S. Nambiar, for the appellan<.
Sarjoo Prasad and M. R. K. Pillai for respondent No. 1.
C. M. Kuruvilla, Sardar Bahadur, Vishnu Bhadur Saharya
Yougindra Khushalani, for respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by·
Bacbawat,
J'. The appellant challenges the scheme ol
nationalisation of road transport services in respect of 9 routes
in the mstricts of Emakulam and Kottayam.
Chapter IV A ol
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 deals with nationalisation of road
transport services.
Section 68C provides for the preparation and
publication of a draft scheme of nationalization of road transport
services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof whether to the exclu- ·
sion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise.
Section
680 provides for the filing of objections of persons affected by
the scheme, for the consideration of the objections by the government, for modification or aPProval of the scheme by the government and for publication of the approved or modified scheme.
Section 68E provides that a scheme finally settled under sec. 680
may at ~my time be cancelled or modified by the State transport
undertaking.
The procedure laid down in secs. 68C and 680
shall, so far as it can be made applicable, be followed in every
case where the scheme is proposed to be modified as if the modification proposed were a separate scheme.
For the purpose of
giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified area
or a notified route sec. 68F(2) (iii) authorises the Regional Transport Authority to modify the terms of an existing permit so as to
curtail the area or rou~e covered by the permit in so far as such
pennit relates to the notified area or notified route. Section 68 I
authorises the State Government to make rules for the purpose of
carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter IV A and in particular
to provide the form in which any scheme or approved scheme may
be published under secs. 68C and 680. In exercise of its powers
under sec. 68 I the State Government framed the Kerala Motor
Vehicles (State Transport Undertaking) Rules, 1960. Rule 3 provides that every proposed scheme shall be in form I when it is
in complete exclusion of existing road transport service, in form II
when the scheme is in partial exclusion of existing road transport
service, in form III when the scheme is in supplementation of
existing road transport service and in form IV when the scheme
is to modify an existing scheme.
On December 15, 1965 the Kerala State Transport Corporation published a draft scheme in forirt II for nationalization of 9
specified routes in the districts of Ernakulam and Kottayam in
partial exclusion of the existing
passenger
transport services
466
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969) I S.C.R.
concerned, giving the particulars of the stage carriage permits lo
A
be excluded.
On October 17, 1966 after hearing the objectors
the State Government approved the scheme.
On October 24,
1966 the government published
the
approved
scheme.
On
December 7, 1966 the appellant tiled a writ
petition
in
the
Kerala High Court to quash the scheme.
\I. P. Gopalan Nambiyar J. dismissed
the
petition.
A
Divisional
Bench of the
R
High Court affirmed his order.
The present appeal
has
been
filed after obtaining special leave.
The appellant's contention is that the impugned scheme is a
complete exclusion scheme and should have been in form I and
as it is in form II it is in contravention of Ruic 3 read with
sec. 68C and is therefore invalid.
Let us examine this contention.
The scheme i, in respect of 9 specified routes. The scheme
exclude, all private operators holding stage carriage permits for
those routes.
Take the route Kotlayam-Ernakulam.
All
the
private operators holding stage carriage pennits for that route arc
excluded.
It is therefore argued that the scheme is one of complete exclusion.
But it appears that there arc 33 existing routes
partially overlapping the notified routes.
The 33 existing routes
and the notified routes have many common road sectors.
The
scheme docs not inte1fere with the services on the
33
routes.
In spite of the scheme the public can get services on the common
road sectors from the operators running on the 33 routes.
Take
the notified Kollayam-Ernakulam route.
There is
an existing
Kottayam-Muttupctty route.
A portion of the Kottayam-Muttupetty
route overlaps
the Kottayam-Ernakulam
route.
The
impugned scheme does not exclude the services of the operators
of the Kottayam-Muttupetly route on the road sector common to
the Kottayam-Ernakulam and Kottayam-Muttupctty routes.
On
these facts, it is impossihle to say that the impugned scheme
1s
one of complete exclusion.
c
D
E
F
Section 68C envisages schemes of road transport services in
relation to any area or route or portion thereof whether to the
exclusion. complete, or partial of other persons
or otherwise.
Rule 3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles (State Transport Undertaking) Rules, 1960 speaks of schemes of road transport service
G
in complete or partial exclusion of existing road transport services.
From the language of sec. 68C and Ruic 3 it appears that
a
complete exclusion scheme in relation to any area or route would
be a scheme which completely excludes the existing road sc1viccs
of private operators on the area or route in question.
The route
includes the highway over which it runs.
If other existing serH
vices arc allowed to continue over a part of the highway relating
to the
notified
route the scheme is
not one of complete
exclusion.
. .
..
A
B
..
c
D
E
F
G
H
MOTOR UNION v. KERALA (Bachawat, J_)
467
A stage carriage permit is granted under secs. 46 to 48 for
a specified area.
The words "roads included in the proposed
route or area" in sec. 47(1) (f) implies that a route includes the
road or the physical track.
Section 68F(2) (iii) implies that a
portion of the route of an existing permit may relate to a notified route.
This happens when the two routes have a common
road sector Section 68F (2)(iii) authorises the exclusion of
the common portion of the road from the existing permit for
giving effect to the scheme for the notified route.
For the purposes of Chapters N and IV A there is no practical distinction
.between the route or the notional line from one terminus to
another for which the permit is granted and the road over which
the transport services are run and operated.
As pointed out in
Nilkanth Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar(') "the distinction
between "route" as the notional line and "road" as the physical
track disappears in the working of Chap. NA." The route is
also an area.
(see Kondala Rao v. Andhra Pradesh S.T.C. Corporation(2) & C.P.C. Motor Service v. State of Mysore(3).
The
impugned scheme does not exclude the road transport services
of the 3 3 existing routes over many sections of
the highways
relating to the notified routes.
It follows that the scheme is not
in complete exclusion of existing road transport services in respect of the notified routes and is not required to be in form I.
There is no infirmity in the scheme because it was in form IL
The impugned scheme is in partial exclusion of operators
from Kottayam-Ernakulam and Kottayam-Eratupettah routes and
7 other routes.
It is common case that there were earlier schemes
relating to the Kottayam-Ernakulam and Kottayam-Eratupettah
routes.
In so far as the impugned schemes excludes
private
operators from those routes, it has the effect of modifying the
earlier schemes.
The appellant's contention is that the impugned scheme is invalid as the modification of the earlier schemes
were made without complying with the provisions of sec. 68E.
In our opinion, this contention is baseless.
The new scheme has
been proposed and approved after following the procedure laid
down in secs. 68C and 68D. In so far as the new scheme modifies the earlier schemes, the modifications could be made under
sec. 68E.
As the procedure laid down in secs. 68C and 68D
were followed the conditions of sec. 68E were satisfied.
68E
does not require that the new scheme should expressly say that
it cancels or modifies the earlier schemes.
On the promulgation
~f the new scheme the earlier schemes stand modified by implicaoon pro tanto.
A scheme to modify an existing scheme simpliciter is required
by Rule 3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles (State Transport Under-
(!) [1962] Suppl. I S.C.R. 728 at 737.
(2) A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 82 at 93.
-(3)J [1962] Supp. I.S.C.R. 717; A.l.R. 1966 S.C. 1661.
468
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969) J S.C.R.
taking) Rules, 1960 to be in Form IV.
The impugned scheme
was in Form II as it was ir. partial exclusion of the existing road
transport service.
Such a scheme could not be
in
form IV.
The partial exclusion ~cheme wa, rightly proposed in form II and
when approved it had the effect of mollifying the earlier schemes.
Counsel suggested that the approval of the scheme by
tl1e
State Government on October 17, 1966 was defective as
the
Government was merely of the opinion tl1at the proposed scheme
was necessary to provide efficient, adequate and co-ordinated road
transport services and it dill not form the opinion that the scheme
was necessary to provide economical road transport service.
'fhe
point was not taken in the coum below and we therefore indicated
in the course of the arguments that the appellant will
not be
permitted to raise this point at this late stage.
Several other
objections were taken in the courts below but they arc not preos-ed
in this Court.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Y.P.
Appeal dismissed.
"
A
B
c