# A. VISHWANATII RAO ETC v. THE STATE OF MYSORE & ORS

- **Citation:** [1968] 3 S.C.R. 198
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-02-16
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, V. Ram~Swami, G. K. Mitter
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/a-vishwanatii-rao-etc-v-the-state-of-mysore-ors-4276
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act 1939, ss. 68•8,
68.C, 68-D, awd 68-E; Rood
Tramport Act 1950, s. 20; Constitution of Jndia, Art, 14;-Mysore State
Transport Corporation preparing sclle1ne to take over route partly in Mysor~
nnd partly in A11dhra Pradesh-Both State Governments and Centrcl
Government approving final schemt-failure to prepare scheme accordiFlg
to s. 20 of 1950 Act if mere irregu/arity.-Scheme prescribing wide dispa;ity between nwximuni and 1ni11im&1m n11mber of vehicles and servicesif fraud on ss. 68.C and 68-E-Exclusion only of Mysore and not~Andhra
Pradish pr;vate operators-if discrbninatory.
The appellants were tralisport operators plying a stage carriag.e on an
inter-State route 28 mile. Ion~ oi which a portion of 5 miles is ·situated
in the State of Andhra Prade.h· and the rest in the State of Mysore. A
draft scheme was prepared and published by the second respondent M~re
State Road Transport Corporation under s. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939, proposing to take over the Stage Carria&e Services oil tho
route to the complete exclusion of othe'r operators. After objections against
the scheme had been heard by the Chief Minister of the State of Mysore
under s. 68·B of the Act, tbe draft scheme was. approved by his order dated
March 7, 1964 with two modifications whereby, firstly, it specified the mini·
mum number_ of vehicles and daily servioes and, secondlf, it res!rictcd the
exclusion of other operators only to that part of the route which was in the
State of Mysore. The approval of the Central Government was accorded
to the scheme under the proviso to s. 6l!-D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act
and the final scheme was published by the Mysore Government in its
Gazette dated July 16, 1964.
1be appellants challenged the notification of the Mysore Government
approving tho final scheme by. a writ petition under Art. 226
..,~f the
Constitution but the petition was dismissed by the High Court.
·
It was contended on behalf of the appellants (i) that the provisions or
s; 20 of. the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, were not l:Omplied
with and the final scheme published by the first respondent w..S ull.ra vin'.s:
(ii) that whereas in the draft scheme the maximum number of ·vehicles
and daily services were specified and not the minimum number, the final
scl1eme provided the maximum number of vehicles a.\ 18 and· the( mini·
mum as one, and the maximum number of daily services as 10 and the
minimum as 3; it was contended that by permitting such a great disparity
between the maximum and minimum number of vehicles and daily .services
there was a virtual modification of the draft scheme and therefore the
procedure prescribed by s. 68-E of the Motor Vehicles Act should have
been followed; and (iii) that the approved scheme violated Art, 14 of the
Constitution as there was a complete exclusion of the private Operators on
the portion of the route located in the M}'IOre State. while permitting
those. who were plying their vehicles on the portion of the route lying in
the Slate of Andbra Pradesh.
HELD : dismissing the appeal :
I
c
D
£
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
V~WANATH RAO v. MYSORE (Rama.nvami, I.)
199
(i) Even assuming !hat the reqoirements of s.
20 of the Road
T r•nsp<)rt Corporations Act should also be followed in a case where the
Central Government ·has given its sanction mder s. 68·D of the Motor
Vehicles Act, it must be held that there had been sufficient compliance
with the '.requirements of the Road Transport Corporations Act in the
present case. It was not disputed that .the concurrence of the Sta•c of
Andhra Pradesh was secured for the final acheme and the Gowrnment of
the State of Mysore bad also accorded its approval to it. Jn these circumbtances the omission of -the first respondent to make the scheme in the
precise manner in which " 20 of the Road Transport Corporation Act
directs the prepai'ation of the scheme was ii mere irregularity which could
not lead to the nullification of the final acheme. (203 H-204 BJ
(ii) In the p

## Text

A. VISHWANATII RAO ETC.
v.
THE STATE OF MYSORE & ORS.
February 16, 1968
• '
(J. C. SHAH, V. RAM~SWAMI AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.)
Motor Vehicles Act 1939, ss. 68•8,
68.C, 68-D, awd 68-E; Rood
Tramport Act 1950, s. 20; Constitution of Jndia, Art, 14;-Mysore State
Transport Corporation preparing sclle1ne to take over route partly in Mysor~
nnd partly in A11dhra Pradesh-Both State Governments and Centrcl
Government approving final schemt-failure to prepare scheme accordiFlg
to s. 20 of 1950 Act if mere irregu/arity.-Scheme prescribing wide dispa;ity between nwximuni and 1ni11im&1m n11mber of vehicles and servicesif fraud on ss. 68.C and 68-E-Exclusion only of Mysore and not~Andhra
Pradish pr;vate operators-if discrbninatory.
The appellants were tralisport operators plying a stage carriag.e on an
inter-State route 28 mile. Ion~ oi which a portion of 5 miles is ·situated
in the State of Andhra Prade.h· and the rest in the State of Mysore. A
draft scheme was prepared and published by the second respondent M~re
State Road Transport Corporation under s. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939, proposing to take over the Stage Carria&e Services oil tho
route to the complete exclusion of othe'r operators. After objections against
the scheme had been heard by the Chief Minister of the State of Mysore
under s. 68·B of the Act, tbe draft scheme was. approved by his order dated
March 7, 1964 with two modifications whereby, firstly, it specified the mini·
mum number_ of vehicles and daily servioes and, secondlf, it res!rictcd the
exclusion of other operators only to that part of the route which was in the
State of Mysore. The approval of the Central Government was accorded
to the scheme under the proviso to s. 6l!-D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act
and the final scheme was published by the Mysore Government in its
Gazette dated July 16, 1964.
1be appellants challenged the notification of the Mysore Government
approving tho final scheme by. a writ petition under Art. 226
..,~f the
Constitution but the petition was dismissed by the High Court.
·
It was contended on behalf of the appellants (i) that the provisions or
s; 20 of. the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, were not l:Omplied
with and the final scheme published by the first respondent w..S ull.ra vin'.s:
(ii) that whereas in the draft scheme the maximum number of ·vehicles
and daily services were specified and not the minimum number, the final
scl1eme provided the maximum number of vehicles a.\ 18 and· the( mini·
mum as one, and the maximum number of daily services as 10 and the
minimum as 3; it was contended that by permitting such a great disparity
between the maximum and minimum number of vehicles and daily .services
there was a virtual modification of the draft scheme and therefore the
procedure prescribed by s. 68-E of the Motor Vehicles Act should have
been followed; and (iii) that the approved scheme violated Art, 14 of the
Constitution as there was a complete exclusion of the private Operators on
the portion of the route located in the M}'IOre State. while permitting
those. who were plying their vehicles on the portion of the route lying in
the Slate of Andbra Pradesh.
HELD : dismissing the appeal :
I
c
D
£
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
V~WANATH RAO v. MYSORE (Rama.nvami, I.)
199
(i) Even assuming !hat the reqoirements of s.
20 of the Road
T r•nsp<)rt Corporations Act should also be followed in a case where the
Central Government ·has given its sanction mder s. 68·D of the Motor
Vehicles Act, it must be held that there had been sufficient compliance
with the '.requirements of the Road Transport Corporations Act in the
present case. It was not disputed that .the concurrence of the Sta•c of
Andhra Pradesh was secured for the final acheme and the Gowrnment of
the State of Mysore bad also accorded its approval to it. Jn these circumbtances the omission of -the first respondent to make the scheme in the
precise manner in which " 20 of the Road Transport Corporation Act
directs the prepai'ation of the scheme was ii mere irregularity which could
not lead to the nullification of the final acheme. (203 H-204 BJ
(ii) In the present case the· distance of the route in question was a
>hort distance of 28 miles, and the order of the Chief Minister shows that
there was seasonal variation of traffic density nnd during marriage and
other seasons it was ncce."!.sary to operate extra services. There was also
variation on account of auspicious ~nd inauspicious days .. It was felt by
the Chief Minister that the scheme would have to be 5ufficicntly flexible
to enable adjustment of services and vehicles to cater for the actual traffic
needs. Jn the context of the particular facts of the case the gap between
the minimum -and maximttm number of vehicles and services was not w
great as to amount to a fraud on 5. 68.C and 68-E of the Motor Vehicles
Act. [205 F-H] .
B. H. A.<wathanarayan Singh and Ors. v. State of Mysore & Ors., [1966]
1 S.C.R. 87, di•tinguisbed.
(iii) It is manifest tha! operator. plying in the Slate of Mysore and
those plying in the Slate of Andhra Pradesh constitute two different classes
of persons and therefore no question of discrimination (%1.n arise if there
is complete exclusion of the operatOrs within the State of Mysore and if
there is relaxation with regard to those ope'rating in the State of Andbra
Pradesh. [206 A-BJ
CIVIL APPE.LLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 8 and
9 of 1968.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
October 27, 19~( o( the Mysore High Court in Writ Petitions
Nos. 1720 and 1722 of 1964.
P. Babula Reddy and K. Rajendr11 Chaudhuri, for the appellants (in both the appeals).
Shyama/a Pappu, M. K. Ramaniurthi and Vi11eet Kumar, for
respondent No. 2 (in both the appeals).
R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No. 3 (in
both the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami, J. These appeals are brought by special leave
from the judgment of the Mysore High-Court dated October 27,
1967 dismissing Writ Petitions Nos. 1720 and 1722._of 1964;
The appellants are transport operators plying a stage carriage
on the .route Yadgir to Narayanapet on the strength of permits
issued by the Regional Transport A11thority, Gulbarga. The route
.200
SVPREMB COUllT REPORTS
(1968] 3 S.C.R.
Yadgir to Narayanapet is an inter.State route of a dis·tance of 28
miles out of which a portion of 5 miles is situated in the State of
Andhra Pradesh ana the rest is in the State of Mysore. A draft
scheme was prepared by the second respondent, Mysore State
Road Transport Corporation under s. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles
Act, proposing to take over the Stage Carriage Services on the
inter-State route Yadgir to Narayanapet to the complete exclusion of other operators.
The draft scheme was published in
the Gazette on June 21, 1962. The appellants and some others
filed their objections against the proposed scheme. The objections were heard by the Chief Minister of ·the State of Mysore
under s. 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act and the draft scheme
was approved with certain modifications by his
order dated
March 7, 1964. The approval of the Central Government was
later on accorded under the proviso to sub-section (3) of s. 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act. Tue approved scheme made two
modifications to the draft scheme.
The first was that it speciB
c
fied the minimum number of vehicles and daily services. The
second modification was that it restricted the exclusion of other
operators only to that part of the route which was in the State of
Mysore.
The approved scheme was published by the Government of Mysore in its Gazette dated July 16, 1964. The appellants moved the High Court of Mysore for grant of a writ under
Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash the notification of the Mysore
Government dated July 16, 1964 approving the final scheme. The
main ground of challenge was lhat the approved scheme violated
E
the provisions of s. 20 of the Road Transport Corporations Act,
1950 (Act 64 of 1950). It was also contended that there was an
infringement of the requirements of s. 68-C and s. 68-E of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act 4 of 1939) as modified by Act
100 of 1956, but the writ applications were dismissed by the
High Court by its judgment dated October 27, 1967.
D
••
Chapter IV A was inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act (Act 4
of 1939) by ·the Amending Act 100 of 1956 with effect from
February 16, 1957. Section 68-C which is incorporated in
Ch. IV A reads :
"Where any State transport underlaking is of opinion that for the purpose of providing
at• efficient,
adequate, economical and proper! y co-ordinated road
transport service, it is necessary in the public interest
that road transport services in general or any particular
class of such service in relation to any area or route or
portion thereof should be run and operated by the State
transport undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise,
the
State transport undertaking may prepare
a
scheme
G
H
\
A
B
c
D
E
VISllWANATH RAO v. MYSORE (Ramaswami, J.)
201
giving particulars of the nature of the services
proposed to ·be · rendered, the area or route proposed
10 be covered and such other particulars
respecting
thereto as may be' prescribed, and shall cause very such
scheme to be published in the Official Gazette and also
in such other manner as the State Government may
direct."
Section 68-D provides as foll()ws :
" ( 1 ) Any . person affected by the scheme published .
under section 68C may, within thirty days frO)ll the
date of the publication of the scheme in the Official
Gazette, file objections thereto before the State Government.
(2) The State Government may, after censidering
the objections and• after giving an opportunity to the
objector or his representatives and the representatives
of the State transport undertaking to be heard in the
matter, if they so desire; approve or modify the scheme.
( 3) · The scheme as approved or modified
under
sub-seetion (2) shall then be published in the Official
Gazette by the State Government and the same shall
thereupon becO)lle final and shall be called the approve« scheme and the area or route to which it relates
shall be called the notified area or notified route :
Provided that no such scheme which relates •to any
inter-State route shall be deemed to be an approved
scheine unless it has been published in the Official
Gazette with the previoiis approval of the Central
Government."
F
Section 68-E stara :
"Ariy sc~e published under
sub-section
(3)
of section 68D· may at any time be cancelled or modified by . the State .transport undertaking; and the procedure laid down in section 68C and section 68D shall,
G
so far as it can be made applicable, be followed
in
every .case whete the scheme is pi:oposed to be modified
as if the modification proposed were a separate scheme;"
H
Section 3 of the 'Road Transport Corporations Act, 19~0 provides for establishment of Road Tr11nsport Corporations arid
reads as follows :
"The State Government, having regard to--
(a) ·the' advantages offered to the ·public, traile and
industI'y by the development' of road transport;
L4Sup.Cl/68-14
202
SUPREME eotlaT REPORTS
(1968) 3 S.CR.
(b) the desirability of co-ordinating 811.Y form of
road transport with any other form of transport;
( c) the desirability of extending and improving the
facilities for road transport in any area and of
providing an efficient and economical system of
road transport service therein;
may, by notification
in the Officiat Gazette, establish a Road Transport Corporation for the whole or any
part of the State under such name as may be specified
in the notification. ff
Section 4 states :
"Every Corporation shall be body corporate by the
name notified under section 3 having perpetual succession and a common seal, and shall by the said name
sue and be sued."
Section 18 is to the following effect :
"It shall be the general duty of a Corporation so to
exercise its powers as progressively to provide or secure
or promote the provision of, an efficient,
adequate,
economical and properly co-ordinated system of road
transport services in the State or part of the State for
which it is established and in any extended area:
provided that nothing in this section shall be, construed as imposing on a Corporation, either directly
or indirectly, any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court. or tribunal to
which it would not otherwise be subject. ff
·
Section 19 ( 1) provides as follows:
" ( 1 ) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a Corporation shall have power-
( a) to operate road transport services in the State
and in any ~tended area;
"
•.
Section 20 deals with extension of the operation of the road
transport service of a Corporation to areas within another State.
Section 20 reads as follows :
"20. ( 1) If a Corporation considers it to be expedient in the public intereSt to extend the operation of
any of its road transport servi~ to any route or area
'situated within another State, it may, with the permisA
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
-·
A
B
c
D
E
VISHWANATII llAO v. :MYSORP. (Ramaswami, J.)
203
sion of the State Government,
negotiate with
the
Government of the other State regarding the proposed
extension.
( 2) If the Government of the other State approves
the proposed extension, the Corporation shall prepare
a scheme for the purpose and forward the same to the
other Government for its consent, and after such consent has been received, the Corporation may, with the
previous approval of the State Government,
sanction
the scheme.
( 3) After the scheme has been so sanctioned, it
shall be competent for the Corporation to extend the
operation of its road transport service to such route or
area and when the operation of such service is so extended, the Corporation shalt operate the service on
that roilte or in that area subject to the provisions of
any Jaw in force in the other State within which such
route or area is situated.
"
Section 2 ( c) defines an "extended area" to mean "any area or
route to which the operation of any road transport service of a
Corporation has been extended in the manner provided
in
section 20."
On behalf of ·the appellants it was• contended; in the
first
place, !hat the provisions of s. 20 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 were not complied with and the final scheme
published by respondent No. 1 was ultra vires. We are unable
to accept this argument as correct: It is not necessary to examine
in this case, whether there is any inconsistency between the proF
visions of s. 20 of the RoS!i Transport COrporations Act,.1950.
and the proviso to s. 68-D 'of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is li!so
not necessary to express any _opinion as to whether the requirements of s. 2o of the Road Transport, Corporations Act should
be complied witli even in the case of a scheme relating to interG
"
State route to which the Central Government has accorded
approval under the proviso to• s. 68-D of the Motor Vehiclles
Act. We shall assume in favour of the appellants that the requirements of s. 20 of the Road Transport Corporations Act
should also be followed in a case where the Central Government
has given sanction under s. 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Even upon that a~sumption we hold ·that there has been sufficient
compliance with the requirements of s. 20 of the Road Transport Corporations Act in the present case. It is not disputed
that the concurrence of the State of Andhra Pradesh
wa~
secured for the final scheme and .fue Government of the State of
204
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1968] 3 s.c.R.
Mysore had also accorded its approval to it.
In these circumstances the omission of respondent No. 1 to make the scheme in
the precise manner in which s. 20 of the Road Transport Corporations Act directs the preparation of the scheme is a mere irregularity which cannot lead to the nullification of the final scheme
published on July 16, 1964.
We pass on to consider the next contention of the appellants
that in the draft scheme the maximum number of vehicles and
daily services was specified and not the minimum,. but in the final
scheme approved under s. 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act there
was specification of the minimum number of vehicles and daily
services in respect of the route in question. The approved
scheme stated that the maximum number of vehicles was 18 and
the minimum was 1. It was, also, stated that the maximum number of daily services was 10 and the minimum was 3. It waS
maintained on behalf of the appellants that by prescribing the
maximum and minimwn n11mber of vehicles and daily services
and by pennitting such a great disparity between the maximum
and minimum number of vehicles and daily services there was a
virtual modification of the draft scheme and the procedure prescribed bys. 68-E of the Motor Vehicles Act should have been
followed. In our opinion, there is no justification for this argument. It is true that in B. H. Aswathanarayan Singh and Ors. v.
State of Mysore and Ors.('), it was pointed out by this Court
that if the proportion which the minimum bears to the maximum
is so great, and the gap between the two, is so wide as to make
the prescription of the maximum and the minimum amount to
a fraud on ss. 68-C and 68-E, the scheme will stand vitiated. But
at the same time it was explained that it was not possible to Jay
down specifically at what stage the fixing
of minimum
and
maximum would turn into frau_d; but it is only when the gap
between the minimum and maximum is so great that it amounts
•to fraud on the Act that it will be open to a court to hold that
the scheme is not in compliance with s. 68-C and is hit by s. 68-E.
The gap between the minimum and maximum would
depend
upon a number of factors, particularly on the variation in the
demand for tran~port at different seasons of the year. At page
97 of the Repott, Wanchoo, J., as he then was, speaking for
the Court, observed as follows:
"There is no doubt that though fixing of minimum
and maximum number of vehicles and trips with respect
to each route is pennissible under s. 68-C and would
not be hit by s. 68-E, the proportion
between
the
minimum aμd maximum should not be so great as to
make the fixing of minimum and maximum a fraud on
/1) [!966] t S.C.R. 87.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
VISHWANATH RAO v. MYSORE (Ramaswami, J.)
205
ss. 68-C and 68-E of the Act. It is not possible to lay
down specifically at what stage the fixing of minimum
and maximum would turn into fraud; but it is only
when the gap between the minimum and maximum is
so great that it amounts to fraud on the Act that it
will be open to a coun to hold that the scheme is not in
compliance with s. 68-C and is hit by s. 68-E. The gap
between the minimum and maximum would
depend
upon a number of factors, particularly on the variation
in the demand for transpon at different seasons of the
year. Even so if the approved scheme were to fix minimum and maximum with very wide disparity between
the two, it may be possible for the coun to hold after
examining the facts of the case that such fixation is not
in accordance with s. 68-C and is a fraud on s. 68-E.
But, with respect, it seems to us that a variation in
minimum and maximum from 6 to 12 or 5 to 9 can
hardly be pf such an order as to amount to fraud on
the Act. The observations with respect to fixing of
minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips
in the scheme made in Rowjee's case [(1964) 6 S.C.R.
330] must therefore be treated as obiter as in that case
they did not require determination. In the present case
the gap is not of such a wide nature."
In the present case, the distance between Yadgir and Naray;urnpeUs a short distance of twenty-eight miles and the order of the
Chief Minister shows that there was seasonal variation of traffic
density and during marriage and other seasons it was necessary
to operate extra services. There was also variation on account
of auspicious and inauspicious days. The scheme had to provide
for operating extra services during J athras, Car festivals
and
other occasions like Dasara fair at Mysore, Ulvi fair at Ulvi,
Shivrarathri fair at Gokarn etc. It was felt by the Chief Minister that the scheine will have to be sufficiently flexible to enable
the State Transport Undertaking to adjust its services and vehicles
to cater to Shandy or weekly Bazar traffic to various places. In
the context of the panicular facts of this case we are of opinion
that the gap between the fixation of minimum and the maximum
number of vehicles and of daily services is not so great as
to
amount to a fraud on s. 68-C and 68-E of the Motor Vehicles
Act.
We accordingly reject the argument of the appellants on
this aspect of the case.
Lastly, it was contended that the approved scheme violated
Art. 14 of the Constitiition as there was a complete exclusion
of the private operators on the portion of the route located in
the Mysore State while permitting those who are plying their
206
SUPaEMB COURT aEPOllTS
[1968) 3 S.C.R.
vehicles on the portion of the route lying in Andllra Pradesh
State.
We do not consider there is any substance in this argument. It is manifest that operators plying in the State of Mysore
and those plying in the State of Andhra Pradesh constitute two
different classes of persons and therefore no question of discrimination can arise if there is complete exclusion of the operators
within the State of Mysore and if there is relaxation with regard
to those operating in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
For the reasons expressed we hold that there is no merit in
these appeals which are accordingly dismissed with costs-there
will be one set of hearing fees for both the appeals.
R.K.P.S.
Appeals dismissed.
B
,
c