# C. P. C. MOfOR SERVICE, MYSORE v. THE STATE OF MYSORE AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 717
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961-01-30
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals No. 180 of 1961
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, M. Hidayatullah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/c-p-c-mofor-service-mysore-v-the-state-of-mysore-and-another-2567
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Stage Carriage-State Transport Undertaking-SchemeVaTidity-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 a scheme for taking over certain stage carriage
services to the complete exclusion of private operators, which
was approved and notified by the State of Mysore under the
provisions of Ch. IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it
"Was provided, inter alia:
"The State Transport Undertaking
will
operate services to the complete exclusion of other
persons
(i) on all the notified inter-district routes except
in regard to the portions of inter-district routes lying outside
the limits of Mysore District, and also (ii) over the entire
length of each of the inter-district 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 a notional line running between two termini and following a 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
H~W.J.
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962) SUPP.
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. C 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 a scheme approved
and applied by the State of Mysore by itH Notification 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 Constitution, 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 interDistrict. On ~eptember 21, 1960, the second respondent, who is tho General Manager of the State
Transport Undertaking, published a
tentative
sohcme for taking over stage carriage services over
64 routes, which were shown in a 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 appellants, which were heard by the Chief Minister, who
was the authority to bear tho objections under the
Rules, a

## Text

(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
717
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-SchemeVaTidity-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 a scheme for taking over certain stage carriage
services to the complete exclusion of private operators, which
was approved and notified by the State of Mysore under the
provisions of Ch. IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it
"Was provided, inter alia:
"The State Transport Undertaking
will
operate services to the complete exclusion of other
persons
(i) on all the notified inter-district routes except
in regard to the portions of inter-district routes lying outside
the limits of Mysore District, and also (ii) over the entire
length of each of the inter-district 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 a notional line running between two termini and following a 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
H~W.J.
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962) SUPP.
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. C 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 a scheme approved
and applied by the State of Mysore by itH Notification 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 Constitution, 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 interDistrict. On ~eptember 21, 1960, the second respondent, who is tho General Manager of the State
Transport Undertaking, published a
tentative
sohcme for taking over stage carriage services over
64 routes, which were shown in a 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 appellants, 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
..
..
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
719
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 already referred. The appellants, in their petition
under Art. 226 of the Constitution, raised many
points before the High Court. The High Court, by
its judgment under appeal dated January 30, 1961,
dismissed the petition. Some of the grounds were
considered in that judgment; but others had already
been disposed of in other petitions, in which a common judgment was delivered by the High Court
also on the same day in Writ Petition No. 75 of
1960. That order concerned another scheme for
the Hassan District of Mysore State.
In the appeal before us, the scheme is challenged on four ~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 compliance with the mandatory requirements of ss. 68C
and 68E of the Motor Vehicles Act; that the scheme
is destructive of co-ordination, which is the gist of
efficient motor transport services; and finally, that
the routes on which the appellants operated, were,
in any event, not affected by the monopoly on certain, routes created in favour of the State Transport
Undertaking. These contentions will be dealt with
in detail by us in this judgment, and need not be
stated at greater length at this stage.
Private operators in the Mysore State including the appellants, plied their omnibuses ' on three
different kinds of routes. They were inter-District,
inter-District and inter-State. By the scheme, the
State Transport Undertaking had 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 :
1961
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.
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ll962) SUPP.
•'(d) Whether the scrvic•.s are
to be operated by the
State Transport Undertaking to the exclusion,
complete or pa1 tial, of
other persons or otherwise.
I. The State Transport
Undertaking will operate services to the
complete
exclusion
of other person' ( i)
on all the
notified
inter-district
routes
except in regard to
the portions of interdistrict routes lying
outside the limit> of
Mysore District, and
also 1 ii) over the entire length of each of
the inter-district route
lying
within
the
limits
of
M ysorc
District.
2. In so far as the notified routes arc concerned
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''.
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 operators in respect of the maximum number of vehicles
as woll as the maximum number of the daily services were invari'~bly show11 as ":N°il".
Section 68C
of tho l\Iotor Vehicles Act permits the taking over
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPOHTS
721
of any route or area either wholly or partly by the
State Undertaking, and the action of the State
Government has not been challenged as either ultra
vires or invalid. This is due perhaps to the fact
that in a number of cases recently 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 respondents that on the routes mentioned in the scheme,
the private operators have no omnibuses, nor any
daily services at all. This, in our opinion, is the
direct result of taking over of certain routes, because
if those routes are taken away, then the private
operators would not be running their omnibuses
on those routes, and the appropriate
entry
would be 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 Transport Authority has been given the power to fix
them. But that is a matter for the determination
of the transport authorities under tho Motor Vehicles Act. It is too much to expect fa.res and timiings 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
1961
C. P. lJ, Motor
Service, · M ~sure
v.
The State:·af }tlysore
ida_m.lull'14 J.
lHl
C. P. C. Motor
Strvic1. ft! yso16
..
TM S1011 oj \.frsort
HiJaJal1'l/a J.
722 SUPREME COURT REPOR'IS [1U62) SUPP.
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 omnibuses at the border, where the routes operated by
the State Transport Undertaking and the private
operators bifurcate. The transhipment, by itself,
would not connote a lack of co-ordination.
Under
s. 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 a 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 a contradiction 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 InterState routes. The State Transport Undertaking
(1) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
723
it was argued, had not proposed nationaliaittion of certain Inter-District and Inter-State
routes lying outside the limits of Mysore
District, though a few of the notified routes
traveroe· portions of Inter-State and InterDiatrict 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 reading the order of the Chief Minister. In the sentence,
"It was contended by the Objectors that if the Mysore Government Road Transport Department .was
to operate certain notified routes to 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 a 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 a 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 a private operator
could run on that sector. The direction, therefore,
clearly said that the route left to the private
operators would be open to them beyond the borders of the District, but 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 a 'route' and
•a portion of a route', and we ntied not cover the.
same ground. In our opinion, there is no contradiction between the order of the Chief Minister
and the direotions included by him in the concluding 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.
..
J
j
I
tI
..
..
(1) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT .REPORTS
725
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 a case from Ceylon reported in
Kelani Valley Motor Transit Co., Ltd. v. ColomboRatnapura 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 a definite portion of
a route of a 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 a route
ABODE may overlap the other route up ~o the
point B but is not the same route, and, therefore,
cannot be said to be notified. What is meant by a
route in the Act 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 notification 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 Undertaking. 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.
726
SuPREME OOURT REPORTS [I J62J SUPP.
word "route" was contrasted with the ' ord "highway". In the Motor Vehicles Act, the 1ords used
are "route or area", and it has been h 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 notified route". This makes the route or ar1 a 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 a portion of the route
of the private operators lying within the My10re
District and the notification of a 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 outside th A scheme. No such route, however, W'MI pointed out to us, and we need not expreas any opinion on
this part of the case or as to what would happen, if
such a route existed.
(1) A.I.R.1961 S.C.82.
I
..
•
• •
I
•
(I) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
727
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 a 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 a statement as to the m,inimum and maxi·
mum number of vehicles to be put on a route, as
also the minimum and maximum trips. It was,
however, held by this Court that a. departure from
the minimum number would mean the alteration of
the scheme, necessitating the observance of all the
formalities for framing a scheme. In view of this,
the Rules were amended, obviating the necessity of
. indicating the minimum number. The Rule, as it
now stands, has been complied \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,