# C. S. ROWJEE AND OTHERS v. ANDHRA

- **Citation:** [1964] 6 S.C.R. 330
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962-03-24
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 770 of 1963
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/c-s-rowjee-and-others-v-andhra-3093
- **Pages:** 39

## Headnote

330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1964
Balmukand
must be left unperformed forms a considerable
portion of the whole, or does not admit of
compensation in money, he is not entitled to
obtain a decree for specific performance. But
the court may, at the suit of the other party,
direct the party in default to perform specifi.
cally so much of his part of the contract as he
can perform, provided that the plaintiff relinquishes all claim to further performance, and
all right to compensation either for the defici·
ency, or for the loss or damage sustained by
him through the default of the defendant."
v.
Kamlawati
MudholklJI' J.
1964
January,
27
However, in the case before us there is no claim on behalf
ot the plaintiff that he is willing to pay the entire considera·
tion for obtaining a decree against the interest of Pindidas
alone in the property. In the result the appeal fails and
is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
C. S. ROWJEE AND OTHERS
v.
ANDHRA
PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
(B. P. SINHA, C.J., K. SUBBA RAo, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, N.
R.AJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR JI.)
Motor Vehicles-Nationalisation of road transport 1ervice-Pree.aration
and enforcement of scheme-Validity-Issue of
permits fo State
Transport Undertakings-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939), "'
amended by Act I of 1956, Ch. IV, ss. 68C, 68D(3), 68F(l)-
Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1957, rr 4, 141.
The respondent corporation appointed an expert committee to go into
the question as to the working of nationalised ~~nsport in the S_tate. i:ie
Committee laid down the criteria for determining the order 1n which
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
331
areas and routes had to be selected for nationalisation and had drawn up
a list of the remaining districts in which nationalisation should be suctessively taken up. Accordingly, Nellore would have been the next district
to be taken up and the turn of Kurnool district would have come up
_after nationalisation of the routes in Nellore, Chittore and Cuddapah districts were completed. This report was submitted to the Corporation in
February, 1961 and the Corporation accepted it and embodied the approval
in its Administration Report dated March 24, 1962 which was published
in April, 1962. After the General Election in 1962 the Chief Minister
assumed office as Chief Minister on March 12, 1962. On April 19, 1962,
he summoned a conference of the Corporation at which, he suggested
that the nationalisation of bus routes in the Kurnool district should be
taken up first. By its resolution dated 4-5-1962, the Corporation made an
alteration in the order of the districts, successively to be taken up for
nationalisation and selected the western half of the Kurnool as the area
to be nationalised in the first instance. ·ne appellants, motor transport
operators whose routes were all in western half of the Kumool districts
filed objections to the Schemes before the Transport Minister. The Transport Minister approved the schemes. Thereafter, the Corporation applied
to the Regional Transport Authority for permits.
The appellants then
challenged the validity of the schemes in the High Court and in support
of that allegations were made in the affidavit that the ..Chief Minister was
motivated by bias and personal ill-will against the appellants, that he tell
chagrined at the defeat of his partymen and supporters and desiring to
wreak his vengeance against the motor transport operators of the western
parts of Kwnool, his political opponents, instructed the Corporation to
change the order in which the districts should be taken up for nationalisation and that the corporation gave effect to these instructions and directions. These allegations were not denied by the Chief Minister, nor was
an affidavit filed by any person who could claim to know personally about
the truth about these allegations.
1~he High Court repelled these allegations and dismissed the petition. On appeal by certificate the appellants
mainly contended:
(1) that the

## Text

_Characters 0–39,742 of 86,694. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39742 for what follows._

330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1964
Balmukand
must be left unperformed forms a considerable
portion of the whole, or does not admit of
compensation in money, he is not entitled to
obtain a decree for specific performance. But
the court may, at the suit of the other party,
direct the party in default to perform specifi.
cally so much of his part of the contract as he
can perform, provided that the plaintiff relinquishes all claim to further performance, and
all right to compensation either for the defici·
ency, or for the loss or damage sustained by
him through the default of the defendant."
v.
Kamlawati
MudholklJI' J.
1964
January,
27
However, in the case before us there is no claim on behalf
ot the plaintiff that he is willing to pay the entire considera·
tion for obtaining a decree against the interest of Pindidas
alone in the property. In the result the appeal fails and
is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
C. S. ROWJEE AND OTHERS
v.
ANDHRA
PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
(B. P. SINHA, C.J., K. SUBBA RAo, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, N.
R.AJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR JI.)
Motor Vehicles-Nationalisation of road transport 1ervice-Pree.aration
and enforcement of scheme-Validity-Issue of
permits fo State
Transport Undertakings-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939), "'
amended by Act I of 1956, Ch. IV, ss. 68C, 68D(3), 68F(l)-
Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1957, rr 4, 141.
The respondent corporation appointed an expert committee to go into
the question as to the working of nationalised ~~nsport in the S_tate. i:ie
Committee laid down the criteria for determining the order 1n which
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
331
areas and routes had to be selected for nationalisation and had drawn up
a list of the remaining districts in which nationalisation should be suctessively taken up. Accordingly, Nellore would have been the next district
to be taken up and the turn of Kurnool district would have come up
_after nationalisation of the routes in Nellore, Chittore and Cuddapah districts were completed. This report was submitted to the Corporation in
February, 1961 and the Corporation accepted it and embodied the approval
in its Administration Report dated March 24, 1962 which was published
in April, 1962. After the General Election in 1962 the Chief Minister
assumed office as Chief Minister on March 12, 1962. On April 19, 1962,
he summoned a conference of the Corporation at which, he suggested
that the nationalisation of bus routes in the Kurnool district should be
taken up first. By its resolution dated 4-5-1962, the Corporation made an
alteration in the order of the districts, successively to be taken up for
nationalisation and selected the western half of the Kurnool as the area
to be nationalised in the first instance. ·ne appellants, motor transport
operators whose routes were all in western half of the Kumool districts
filed objections to the Schemes before the Transport Minister. The Transport Minister approved the schemes. Thereafter, the Corporation applied
to the Regional Transport Authority for permits.
The appellants then
challenged the validity of the schemes in the High Court and in support
of that allegations were made in the affidavit that the ..Chief Minister was
motivated by bias and personal ill-will against the appellants, that he tell
chagrined at the defeat of his partymen and supporters and desiring to
wreak his vengeance against the motor transport operators of the western
parts of Kwnool, his political opponents, instructed the Corporation to
change the order in which the districts should be taken up for nationalisation and that the corporation gave effect to these instructions and directions. These allegations were not denied by the Chief Minister, nor was
an affidavit filed by any person who could claim to know personally about
the truth about these allegations.
1~he High Court repelled these allegations and dismissed the petition. On appeal by certificate the appellants
mainly contended:
(1) that the schemes did not in reality reflect the
opinion of the Corporation as required by s. 68-C of the Act, but that
the schemes owed their origin to the direction of the Chief Minister who
acted ma la fide in directing the Transport Undertaking to frame the impugned schemes; (2) that the approval of the schemes by the Transport
Minister under s. 68-D(3) must be held to be vitiated by the malafides
of th.e Chief Minister; (3) that the impugned schemes did not conform to
the statutory requirements of s. 68-C and rule 4 of the Rules regarding
the particulars to be embodied in the schemes;
( 4) that some of the
routes included in the schemes were inter-state routes and that under the
proviso to s. 68-D(3) it could not be deemed to be an arproved scheme
unless the previous approval of the Central Government had been obtained and ( 5) that even when a transport undertaking applies for a
stage carriage permit under s. 68-F(l) it must comply with the provisions of r. 141 of the Rules.
Reid: (!) On the evidence placed in the present case it must be held
that it was a result of the conference of the 19th April, 1962 and in
1964
C. s. Rowi••
v.
State of Andhr•
Pradesh
19M
C. S. Rowjee
v.
State of Andhra
Pradesh
332
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
order to give efiect to the wishes of the Chief Minister expressed there,
that the i~pugned scher:n~ were fonnulated
by the Corporatiori and
the~~fore, 1t would be vitiated by malafides notwithstanding the interposition of the semi-autonomous corporation.
1~hough the counler-affidavits contained a denial of the allegation that
the Corporation was acting at the behest of the Chief Minister, there was
no explanation for the choice of the western portion of Kurnool district.
Therefore, the impugned schemes were vitiated by the fact that !hey
were ·not in conformity wjth the requirements of s. 68..C of the Act.
(ii) There was nothing on the record to indicate that the Chlef Minil·
ter influenced the Transport Minister.
Besides, the Transport Minister
stated on oath that in considering the objections under s. 68-D(3) and
approving the schemes he was uninfluenced by the Chief Minister. Therefore, it cannot be held that his approval of the schemes did not satisfy
the requirements of the law.
(iii) In the present case some of the variations between the maxima
and minima in the number of the vehicles propoSed to be operated on
each route were such as to really contravene r. 4 of the Andhra Pradesh
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1957.
Dosa Satyanarayanamurthy v. The Andhra Pradesh State Transport
Corporation, [19611 I S.C.R. 642, referred to.
(iv) The route which was proposed to be
nationalised under the
scheme admittedly lay wholly within the State. The right of the private
operators to ply their vehicles beyond the State border was not affected
by any of the schemes.
Therefore, the proviso to s. 68·D(3) was not
attracted and consequently the schemes did not suffer from the defects
alleged.
(v) The High Court was right in holking that the Regional Transport
Authority which is specifically mentioned in s. 68-F( I) is empowered to
issue the permit to the transport undertaking ''notwithstanding anything
to the contrary contained in Chapter IV" and that the section rendered the
provisions of r. 141 of the Motor Vehicles Rules inappJicable to cases
covered by s. 68-F( 1). No doubt~ in a State where there is no Regional
Transport Authority at all. but there is some other authority which func~
tions as the Regional Transport Authority for the purposes of the Act,
such an authority might be that which would be comprehended by s.
68-F (I) but where as in Andhra Pradesh there is admittedly a Regional
Transport Authority, it cannot be held that such authority is deprived
of the power to issue a permit by reason of s. 68-F( I) merely becauso
the Regional Transport Authority of that area cannot grant permits under
Chapter IV.
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
333
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 770
of 1963.
WITH
Civil Appeals Nos. 771-778, 883 and 884 of 1963.
Appeals from ihe judgment and order dated April 19,
1963, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions
Nos. 267-275 and 289 anct 295 of 1963.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, P. Babula Reddy and K. R.
Chaudhuri, for the appellants (in C.A. No. 77 /1963).
P. Babula Reddy and K. R. Chaudhuri, for the appellants (in C. A. Nos. 771-777 /1963).
K. R. Chaudhuri, for the ap;iellants (in C.A. No. 778/
1963).
K. Srinivasa Murthy and K. R. Chaudhuri,, for , the
appellants (in C. A. Nos. 883 and 884 of 196~).
D. Narasaraju, Advocate-General,
Andhra Pradesh,
P. R. Ramachandra Rao and B; R. G. K. Achar, for the
respondents (in all the appeals).
January 2 7, 1964.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
1964
C. S. Rowiu
..
State of Andhra
Prad<1h
AYYANGAR J .-This batch of 11 Appeals which have
Ayyangar 1.
been consolidated for hearing are directed against the common judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and
are before us on the grant of a certificate of fitness under
Art. 133(1) of the Constitution by the said High Court.
The proceedings concerned in the appeals arise out of
Writ Petitions filed before the High Court by the several
appellants before us under Art. 226 of the
Constitution
challenging the validity of three Schemes framed
under
Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, I 939. nationalising motor transport in certain areas in the Kumool Di~
trict of the State of Andhra Pradesh which for convenience
we shall refer to as the impugned Schemes.
The appellants
who impugn the validity of the schemes are the previously
existin11: motor
transport
operators
whose permits
are
liable to be modified or cancelled under the provisions of
334
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
!964
the Schemes on their coming into force.
The impugned
c. s. Rowjee
schemes were published by Government as G.0.Ms. 292,
State 0~· Andhra 293 and 294 of the Home, Transport Department on the
Pradesh
5th February, 1963 in virtue of the powers conferred on
Government by sub-s. 2 of the 68-D of the Motor Vehicles
Ayyangar J.
Act.
The Andhra Pradesh State Road Trans;x>rt Corporation which for shortness we shall refer to as the Corporation, besides the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Regional
Transport Authority,· Kllffioo! were impieaded as respondents to the petitions.
They are also the respondents before us.
By reason of the first Scheme, 34 routes were
intended to be taken over, while under the 2nd and 3rd,
17 and 13 routes respectively were proposed to be nationalised.
The routes covered by these three schemes are all
in the western half of the Kurnool District.
Before adverting to the points requiring consideration
in the appeals, it would be convenient to set out the relevant
statutory provisions relating to the nationalisation of Road
Transport for it is primarily on their construction that the
decision of the appeals would turn.
Chapter IV-A containing special provisions relating to
"State Transport Uundertakings" was introduced into the
Motor Vehicles Act (Act IV of 1939) by an amenclment
effected bv Central Act I of 1956 which came into effect
on 16-2-1957. The Chapter consists of sections numbered
68-A to 68-I.
68-A contains definitions and of these it
is sufficient to refer to the definition of "State Transport
Undertaking" which includes inter alia "any undertaking
providing road transport service, where such undertaking
is carried on by ...... any Road Transport Corporation
established under sec. 3 of the Road Transport Corporation
Act 1950." (to refer to the portion which is material.)
(It might be mentioned that the Corporation, the first
respondent before us is a body established under this enactment.)
68-B reads :-
"The provisions of this Chapter and the rules and,
orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent
therewith
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
335
contained in Chapter IV of this Act or in any
other law for the time being in force or in any
instrument having effect by virtue of any such
law."
The next section 68-C which is the one most involved in
the appeals runs:
"Where any State Transport undertaking is of opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service, it is nec1111sary
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, tb,e State transport undertaking
may prepare a scheme giving particulars of the
nature of the services proposed to be rendered
the area or route proposed to be covered and
such other particulars
respecting
thereto as
may be prescribed, and shall cause every such
scheme to be published in the Official Gazette
and also i.n such other manner as the State
Government may direct."
The first two sub-sections of section 68-D enable persons
affected by a Scheme published under s. 68-C to file objections thereto before the State Government within thirty days
after the publication of the Scheme.
It further provides
for the State Government considering the objections raised
by persons affected by the Scheme after giving an opportunity to the objectors and the "undertaking" to be heard in
the matter before approving or ,nodifying the Scheme. The
Scheme so approved or modified ;, required to be published
in the State Gazette and on sucl:i publication it becomes
final and is to be called "the approved scheme".
This is
followed by sub-sec. (3) which reads:-
"The scheme as approved or modified under sub-s.
(2) shall then be published in
the Official
1964
C. s. Row}tt
\'.
State of Andhra
Pradesh
Ayyangar J.
19M
C. S. Row;u
Y.
State of Andhra
Pradesh
Ayyangar /.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Gazette by the State Government and the same
shall thereupon become final and shall be called
the approved 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 scheme under it has been published in
the Official Gazette with the previous approval
of the Central Government."
Section 68-E provides :
"any scheme published under sub-s. (3) of S. 68-D
may at any time be cancelled or modified by
the State transport undertaking and the procedure laid down in s. 68-C and s. 68-D shall
so far as it can be made applicable be followed
in every case where the scheme is proposerl
to be modified as if the modification proposed
were a separate scheme."
Section 68-F is really consequential on the approval of
the scheme and sub-s. (1) thereof enacts:-.
"Where, in pursuance of an apprnved scheme, any
State Transport
Undertaking
applies in the
manner specified in Chapter IV for a
stage
carriage permit or a public carrier's permit or
a contract carriage i;iermit in respect of a notified area or notified rolite, the Regional Transport Authority shall .issue such permit to the
State transport undertaking, notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in Chapter
IV."
Its second sub-section er·.ables the Regional Transport
Authority to refuse renewil of any other permits to private
operators and otherwise to deal with those permits so as to
give effect to the Scheme.
Sections 68-G and 68-H deal
with the payment of compensation and the methods by
which the same should be computed but as these are hot
material, we shall not quote them.
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
337
Section 68-I empowers the State Government to make
196"
rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions
c. s. Row; ..
of Chapter IV-A and amo~g the specific purposes for which State of ~ndhra
such rules may be framed 1s one under s. 68-1(2) (a) which
Prad<1h
provides for the form in which any scheme or approved
·
Ayyangar J
scheme may be published under section 68-C or sub-section
(3) of Section 68-D and as usual a residuary clause··reading:
"any other matter which has to be or mav be considered."
These draft schemes prepared by the Corporation were
published under s. 68-D in the official Gazette on the 29th
of November, 1962.
The appellants among others filed
objections to the schemes and thereafter there was a hearing of theSe objections by the Transport Minister of the
State under s. 68-0(2) on the 1 Hh of January, 1963. The
Minister passed an order according approval to the schemes
on the 12th of February, 1963, and the schemes as finalis~
ed weno published in the Gazette on the next day, February
13, 1963.
In pursuance of the provisions of the schemes
the Corporation made applica:io'l to the Regional Transport
Authori.y for permits.
Soon thereafter the appellants and
a few others filed writ petitions invoking the jurisdiction of
the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying
for the quashing of the schemes.
These petitions were
dismissed by the High Court by a common judgment on the
19th of April, 1963, holding that the objections made to
the validity of the schemes would not be sustained.
The
learned Judges, however, on the application of the Appellants granted a certificate of fitness under Art. 133 in pursuance of which these appeals have been preferred.
The points urged by the appellan<s before us in support
of their submission regarding the invalidity of the impugned
schemes, were substantially the same as were urged before
High Court and which the learned Judges repelled. Briefly
stated the principal ones were:-(!) that the schemes did
not in reality reflect the opinion of the Corporation that
"it was necessary in the public interest that the Road Transport services in the area or over the route, specified in the
134-159 S.C.-22
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1964
schemes should be run and operated by the State Transc. s. Rowjee port Undertaking" as is required by s. 68-C but that the
S
v1. A dh
schemes owed their origin to the direction of the
Chief
tale o
n ra M' ,
f A dh
.
Pradesh
1ruster o
n ra Pradesh who acted ma/a fide m directAyyangar J.
ing the Transport Undertaking to frame
the
impugned
schemes for the areas for which they were purported to be
framed; (2) that the decision by the Trnnsport Minister overruling the objections raised by the several road transport
operators to the schemes was also ma/a fide, in that he too
acted i.n pursuance of the mala fide intentions of the Chief
Minister. of Andhra Pradesh; (3) that the provisions of the
schemes (and this applied both to the draft schemes published by the Corporation as well as the approved schemes
published under s. 68-0(3) did not conform to the statutory
requirements of s. 68-C and rule 4 of the Rules regarding
the particulars to be embodied in the schemes and that in
consequence the core of the scheme was in violation of
Rule 68(E) of the Act; (4) that the schemes comprised not
merely intra-state routes but also included inter-state transport routes and in the latter case the procedure prescribed
by the proviso to s. 68-D was not followed and hence all
the impugned schemes which are integrated ones are bad
and require to be set aside.
There were also a few minor
ones which we shall notice and examine later.
We shall deal with these four pomts in the same order.
Before taking up the first one viz .. that the draft scheme in
s. 68-D really did not originate fromf the Corporation. the
State Transport Undertaking, but that it was done under
the direction of the Chief Minister who, it was alleged for
reasons which were set out in the affidavits and to which
we shall refer presently was stated to have compelled, directed or induced the Corporation to do so, it would be necessary to give a short resume of the history of nationalised
transport in Andhra Pradesh as well as certain events in
Andhra Pradesh politics which have been the subject
of
allegations in these proceedings.
The present State of
Andhra Pradesh is made uo of two distinct areas- ( 1) what
.
'
is known as the "Telengana area" consisting of nine districts of the old Hyderabad State and (2) the "Andhra area"
which separated from Madras i.e. from the composite
6 S.C.R,
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
339
Madras State, in October 1953 and which comprised 11
districts. These two areas were integrated under the States
Re-organization Act, 1956, to form the present State of
Andhra Pradesh. In the Telengana area the road transport
services had been run by the Government of the Nizam since
the year 1932 and by 1956 private motor road transport
operators had been completely eliminated from this entire
area. In the Andhra Area comprising the 11 districts however, nationalisation of motor transport had not been undertaken.
Soon after the formation of the State of Andhra
Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation was established with effect from 11th of January,
1958 with a view to take steps for extending nationalised
transport to the Andhra areas of the State. Certain routes
in three of the 11 Districts Krishna, West Godavari and
Guntur were nationalised from 1959 onwards. The Vijayawada-Masulipatam and Vijayawada-Guntur routes -were
nationalised in the first instance and thereafter by
about
September, 1959, almost the entire routes in Krishna District were nationalised.
The next district to be taken up
was West Godavari which was done in March, 1960. The
process was nearly completed in this district by tl).e
1st
of February, 1960, except for a few routes. The Government had sanctioned certain schemes for nationalisation in
Guntur District which were expected to be completed by
Oc.ober, 1961. The question which was thereafter
the
subject of consideration was the manner in which and the
stages whereby nationalisation
of the
motor
transport
throughout the State might be brought about.
With this
object the Corporation adopted a resolution in 1960 by
which it decided to appoint an expert Committee to go into
question as to the working of nationalised transport with a
view to improve its
efficiency as well as for drawing up
plans for the future expansion of the road transport services
in the State.
The terms of reference to that Committee
were comprehensive and it started functioning very soon
after the members were appointed.
Shri S. Anantharamakrishnan,
Chainnan
of
Messrs.
Simpson & Co. Ltd.,
Madras, one of the principal motor transport operators of
the Madras State, was the Chairman of the Committee and
it comprised three other members who were officials of the
1964
C. s. Row/ff
"·
State of ttndlrra
Pradtlh
Ayyangar /,
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1g64)
1964
Andhra Pradesh
State Government.
The Committee
c. s. Row} .. ·made various recommendations in the Report which it
v.
submitted to the Corporation on the 9th February, 196L
Stai.P~:a1.i!hra Among the several recommendations which this Committee
made, what is of relevance to the present appeals and on
Ayyangar J.
h · h
1 •
th
w 1c re,1ance was placed in support of the plea that
-e
impugned schemes were vitiated by ma/a {ides are those
contained in Chapter IX of the Report and in particular the
priorities of areas for taking up nationalisation which the
Committee recommended in paragraph 125. They set out
in paragraph 124 the factors which should be taken into
account in fixing the orde1' in which new areas should be
taken up for nationalisation as being (1) "the most profitable areas should be taken up first;" (2) "from the traffic
point of view there should be contiguous expansion;" (3)
"from the administrative point of view it is convenient to
nationalise bus services district by district;" and ( 4) "the
proposal to form large sized divisions should be borne in
view."
Adopting these ariteria ithe Committee stated in
paragraph 125 "that the nationalisation of bus transport
may be extended to the remaining districts in the Andhra
area as indicated below:-
1961-62-Guntur District
1962-63-Nellore and Chittor Districts
1963-64-Cuddapah and Kumool Districts
1964-65-Anantapur and East Godavari Districts
1965-66-Visakhapatnam and
Srikakulam
Dis
tricts".
The Committee also added in paragraph 126 "we recommend that a policy decision may be taken by Government
on the proposal to extend nationalisation of bus services to
the remaining Andhra Districts during the Third Five Year
Plan. The order in which the new areas will be taken over
may also be decided by Government.
The
Corporation
will then be able to make its pla'1s well in advance, and
arrange to provide all the facilities that are needed for expanding its activities to other di~tricts." This report of the
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
341
Anantharamakrishnan Committee was the subject of consideration by the Corporation and they accepted in March,
1962 the above recommendation regarding the phased programme of nationalisa,ion of districts in the order indicated
and embodied this recommendation in their Administration
Report for the period January 11, 1958. (the day on which
the Corporation was formed) to March 31, 1961 which was
submitted to the Government as required bys. 35(2) of the
Road Transport Corporation Act, 1960, on the 7th of April,
1962. In this last document they said speaking of future
trends, "the programme for nationalisation of transport services in the remaining of tlre Andhra Pradesh is as indicated below:-
1961-62-Guntur District
1962-63-Nellore and Chittor Districts
1963-64-Cuddapah and Kurnool Districts
1964-65-Ananthapur and East Godavari Districts
1965-66-Vishakhapatnam
and
Srikakulam Districts."
In the impugned schemes, however,
the Corporation
made an alteration in the order of the Districts successively
to be taken up for nationalisation. It would be seen that
after Guntur District which was nearly completed by the end
of 1961 the next districts to be taken up during the 1962-63
would have been Nellore and Chittor Districts in that order
and it was only thereafter that the District of Cuddapah
and after it Kurnool would be taken up.
That was
the
recommendation of the Anantharamakrishnan Committee
and which had been accepted by the Road Transport Corporation as late as April, 1962 and it may be mentioned in
this connection that the Vice-Chairman of the Road Transport Corporation was himself a member of the Anantharamakrishnan Committee.
By its resolution dated, 4th
May, 1962,' the Road Transport Corporation decided that
instead of the above order Kurnool, Nellore and Cuddapah
Distric<s in that order would be chosen for nationalisation
and in the three schemes which were formulated in pursu·
;mce of this Resolution the western half of Kurnool was
selected as the area to be nationalised in the first instance.
1964
C. s. Rowjee
v.
State of .A.ndhra
Pradesh
Ayyangar J.
342
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1964
As we have indicated earlier the appellants before us
are
c. s. Row~• transport operators whose routes are all in the western half
Stat• 0/' A.ndhro of the. K~m°:°l Di~trict. It is this change in the orders of
Prod,.,,
the Districts m which the routes are to be nationalised and
A.yyangar 1.
the choice of the Western part of Kurnool for being taken
up in the first instance that are alleged to be due to the ma/a
fide intentions of the Chief Minister and this fonns the
main ground upon which the validity of the schemes
is
impugned.
The allegations in this respect may now be stated.
In
the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition No. 267
of
1963 from which Civil Appeal No. 770 of 1963 arises, this
is what is stated:
"The General Elections for the various
Constituencies of Assembly and Parliament were held
in February, 1962. It is well-known that there
are two groups in the Congre~s and they wer~
actively ranged against each other. The previous Chief Minister (Shri Sanjivayya) and the
present Chief Minister (Shri
Sanjiva Reddy)
were both returned from Kurnool District in
general elections. The then Chainnan of the
Zila Parishad Shri Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy
contested unsuccessfully from
Yemniga11Qur
Constituency in Kurnool District.
(Yemniganpur is in the western part of the Kurnool District) . He is the active supporter of the present Chief Minister.
Shri C. Ram
Bhopal
son-in-law of the present Chief Minister also
unsuccessfully contested from the Nandikothur
Constituency in Kurnool District.
(Nandikothur is also iμ the western part of Kumool).
The person who successfully opposed him Sri
P. Venkafakrishna Reddy now M.L.A. is
a
partner in 'Venkata Krishna Bus Service' Nandikothur. This firm owns 2 pem1its and they
stand in the name of J ayaram11yya who wa8
the Election Agent of Sri
Venkata Krishna
Reddy.
Two persons Sri Ganikhan and
Sri
Antony Reddy who are staunch supporters c,f
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
343
the preseni Chief Minister Sri Sanjiva Reddy
were selected as Congress candidates by
the
Parliamentary Board at Delhi when Sanjiva
Reddy was the President of the Indian National
Congress, were also defeated in their respective
Constituencies. It was considered by one and
all that leading transport operators among them,
(the petitioners) were responsible for the defeat
of these persons and this enraged the feelings
of Shri Sanjiva Reddy against the operators in
Kurnool District and particularly the operators
whose routes lay in the western areas of the
District and wi\h a view to cause them loss and
to ruin their business this nationalisation of
transport in the western part of Kurnool was
directed to be undertaken in spite of the Emergency and in spite of the incapacity of the Road
Transport Corporation to fulfil their eariier
commitments for want of buses. The undivided brothers of Sri T. Narayan. a transport operator, namely Sri Venkataswamy contested the
Assembly seat against Sri Sanjiva Reddy
in
the Dhone Constituency from which he
was
returned and he refused
to withdraw
even
though lots of pressure were brought on him.
Sri Rajasekhara Reddy and Sri Vijayakumara
Reddy sons l>f Sri P. Ranga Reddy, Minister in
the previous Cabinet are also transport operators in the Kurnool District.
It is known to
every one that Sri P. Ranga Reddy is in the
group opposed to Sri Sanjiva Reddy.
Sri Y. Mahananda Reddy another transport operator is a staunch
supporter of Sri P. Ranga
Reddy.
When Sanjiva Reddy was President
of the Indian National Congress his selection
·for the Congress ticket was set aside by him
and one Vengal Reddy was selected by
th<'
Pradesh Congress Committee. It is significant
that the three schemes framed for the part of
the Kurnool District
relate to the areas
in
1964
C. s. Rowjee
v.
State of Andhro
Pradesh
Ayyangar /..
1964
C. s. Row/••
v.
Stal• of Andhra
Prail1sh
Ayyangar /.
344
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1g64]
which the routes on which the _above stated
persons are running their buses. It is also significant that the areas
in Kurnool
District
where the supporters of the present Chief Minister are having permits are not sought to
be
inr.luded in any of the three
nationalisatior,
schemes.
In the Nandyal area most of the
transport operators are the supporters of
the
present Chief Minister and their routes are
excluded from the schemes.
It is with a view
to achieve the object of hitting against those'
operators who have fallen into disfavour am'
to protect those who are in his good books
that the schemes have been evolved over routes
and parts of the .District."
11wo further matters were also urged as SW?porting this
plea of' mala {ides.
The first was that with a view to carry
out the original programme which was approved and confirmed by the Corporation in their Administration Report
published on April 7, 1962, the routes in the Nellore District which according to the Anantharamakrishnan Committee Report had to be taken up next were surveyed and
though the elements of contiguity and profitable nature were
both present in regard to the extension of the services to
Nellore, contiguity by reason of the fact that some buses
belonging to the Corporation
and running from Guntur
were already plying in Nellore District and the profitable
nature since these were evaluated by the Anantharamakrishnan Committee whose recommendations were examined
and approved by the Corporation, the nationalisation of the
routes in Nellore was, however, abandoned and that of the
western part of Kurnool was decided upon.
The other
fact was that the National Defence Council passed a resolution as late as the first week of November, 1962, urging
the -deferring of further nationalisation of transport services
for the present and it was in the teeth of this resolution
which was passed at the meeting at which the Chief Minister
himself was present that the schemes of nationalisation of
transport services in Kurnool district was published by the
Corpor<ition on the 29th November, I 962.
6 s:c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
345
Before examining whether these allegations have been
ruaae out it would be necessary to explain the legal po>ition
in relation to which they have to be considered.
To begin
with the schemes now impugned have been formulated by
the Corporation which is an independent semi-autonomous
body brought into existence by the State Governmen, by
acting under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950.
Under s. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act ii is the Corporation which is the State Transport Undertaking which has to
form the opinion whether "for the puv;:iose of providing an
efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-urdinated
road transport service it is necessary in the public interest
whether the service should be run c.nd operated by the State
Transport Undertaking."
Secondly, it is the Corporation
that has to be satisfied that such services should in public
interests be provided "for any area or route''.
In ,the
presen< case, it is undoubtedly the 'Corporation 'that 'has
published the schemes under s. 68-C in which' t\lese two
matters are stated to have been considered and decided
upon by the Corporation itself.
It was not disputed by the
appellants that whatever be the inclinations, desires or
motives of the Chief Minister, if the Corporation had by an
independent consideration of the situation decided on the
formulation of the impugned schemes, their validity could
not be successfully impugned mearly because the schemes
satisfied the alleged grudge which the Chief Minister bore
to the affected operators.
The argument urged by the appellants on this part
of the case was however tow-fold: (1) That it was not in fact
the Corporation that formed the opinion indicated in
s. 68-C but really
the Chief Minister; (2) That the Chief
Minister was
motivated by
extraneous
considerations,
namely, to strike at his political opponents who worked
either against himself or his friends, supporters and relations- in the elections in Bebruary, 1962 and had devised the
schemes in order to cause them loss and compass their ruin.
A subsidiary point was also urged that the Transport
Minister who heard the objections under s. 68-0(2) was
also influenced by the Chief Minister.
It was thus said
that the Chief Minister dominated at every stage through
1964
C. S. Rowjee
v.
State of Andhro
Pradesh
Ayyangar J.
346
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1964
.
which the sche1~es .passed and that the schemes were really
C. s. Rowree the result of lllS improper motive to ruin his political
State 0/· Andhra ?pponents. It was again not disputed by the respondent that
Pradesh
if these steps were made out the schemes would be invalid
Ayyangar J.
and ought to be quashed.
The learned Judges of the High Court have on this
part of the case held: (I) That the allegations made against
the Chief Minister had not been proved; (2) Assuming,
however, that the Chief Minister was actuated by political
motives to hit at his opponents, still, the schemes which were
published by the Corporation, had been framed by the Corporation not at the dictation of the Chief Minister, but as a
result of their own independent judgment; and (3) Lastly,
the learned Judges held that there was no proof that the
Transport Minister who i1eard the objections raised by the
appellants
to the schemes was
influenced by the
Chief
Minister or acted
at his behest,
and
therefore that the
schemes framed and approved
wefe fully in conformity
with the requirements of s. 68-C.
The correctness of these conclusions have been challenged before us and the first matter that requires to be considered is as to whether the allegations against the Chief
,
Minister have been made out.
The question raised has
manifestly to be considered from two aspects. The first is
whether the facts alleged which were stated to have been the
cause of the Chief Minister's animus against the transport
o;ierators in the western part of Kurnool have been established. In regard to this the first point to be noticed is that
the contents of the affidavit were, not vague, but details
were given and these were: (I) The existence of two groups
in the Congress Party, at the time of the General Elections
in 1962, the Chief Minister being the head of one of them
and of the other Mr. Sanjivayya; (2) That at the last General
Elections certain c;mdidates who were named and who are
stated to have belonged to the group of the Chief Minister
were defeated; (3) The Constituencies
where tlley stood
were in the western portion of the Knrnool District; ( 4)
That tllis defeat was occasioned by persons belonging fo.
the other group in the Congress Party whose names are
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
347
also given; (5) That several of these members supporting the
dissident group were motor transport operators and who are
stated to have taken a prominent part in the elections and
in the defeat of the candidates belonging to the Chief
Minister's group; ( 6) The matters in relation to Ranga
Reddy and his sons etc.
These are what might be termed
objective facts.
If thes.: allegations were held
not proved, then the
entire plea of the appellants on this part of the case fails,
because there would be no foundation for the submission
regarding the ma/a {ides of the Chief Minister.
If, however, these facts were held to
be made out, the second
aspect requires to be examined and that is whether the
Court has material to hold that these facts led the Chief
Minister to en;ertain feelings of personal hostility to these
transport operators because of the aid and support the latter
gave to the candidates belonging to the group opposed to
him which led to the defeat of .his partymen.
On this
aspect the. allegations were that the Chief Minister felt
chagrined at the defeat of his partymen and supporters and
desiring to wreak his vengeance against the motor transport
operators of the western parts of Kurnool, his political
opponents. instructed the Corporation to change the order
in which the districts should be taken up for nationalisation
and had Kurnool taken up first, departing from what had
been decided upon, just a little while previously by the Corporation, and that the Corporation gave effect to these instructions and directions by not only taking Kurnool first,
but even in that district eliminating the private operators
from the western portions of the distrfot who were the political opponents of the Chief Minister. This, it is obvious,
would be a matter of probabilities and of the inference to
be drawn by the Court from all the circumstances on which
no direct evidence can be adduaed.
It is, no doubt, true that allegations of mala [ides and
of improper motives on the part of those in power are frequently made and their frequency has increasecl in recent
times.
It is also somewhat unfortunate that allegations of
this nature which have no foundation, in fact, are made in
1964
C. S. Rowjee
v.
State of Andhra
Pradesh
Ayyangar J.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1964
several of the cases which have come u;i before this and other
C. s.