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

- **Citation:** [1975] 1 S.C.R. 493
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-05-17
- **Bench:** M. H. Beg Andy. V. Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mysore-state-road-transport-corporation-v-the-mysore-revenue-appellate-tribunal-6348
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Ac,, Sec. 68C-Jnter-stare operator3
wh~ther prohibited
ireni plyins: vehicles on intra-state routes-lt1eani11~ of route
and
areu--
1 ntrepreta~io11 of sche111e-Con1plete exclusion lvhether can be implied.
Certain Intra-state rcutes were nationalised under Chapter IV-A of' the Motor
\'chicles A~t. There wei;e three approved schemes of nationalisation namely
Anekal Scheme, Gulbarga Scheme and the Bangalore Scheme. Parts of these
Intra-state routes over-lapped inter-state routes over which private transporters
were granted permit9 to ply their vehicles on condition that they will neither
pick up nor drop passengers on any overlapping parts of routes.
The preamble to Anekal Scheme and Gulbarge Scheme do not state that
the scheme is of a total exclusion. The preamble to the Bangalore Scheme.
however, mentions the complete exclusion of all other operators from certain
routes. The Anckal Scheme gives the te1mini with intern1ediate J---.Oints.
The
names of the Inter-Sta-te o~rators have not been 1nentioned in any of these three
Schemes. The schemes show that the term "route'' is used in each scheme for
'5ervices between two termini,
The appellant Corporation objects to the permits granted to tho Inter-State
transporters in so fai: as they cqvcr overlapping portions of Intra-state routes
on the basis of three schemes.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : ( 1) There can be no doubt that the appellant corporation has
power to frame a scheme under Section 68(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, providing that Road Transport Services in general or in any particular class,
in
Felation to any area or route ol portion thereof should be run and operated
t)y the State Transport Undertaking whether to the exclusion, complete or
partial of other persons or otherwise. This power includes the power to ex-
('}ude even inter-state motor operators altogether from a part of any notified
route.
[494GJ
·
(2) Section 68C howe,·er requires as a condition precedent to any exclusion
of private operators that the scheme should give particulars of the nature of
services proposed to be rendered. the area of route proposed to be covered
and such oth~ particulars as may be prescribed. Each scheme has to be published in the Official Gazette. A scheme finally emerging after opportunities
arc given for objections by persons interested.
(495B-C]
(3) A scheme which totally excludes inter-state private operators fron1
using any part of a notified route must make the intention to do that clear.
The Act makes a distinction between notification of an area and of a route.
An area may cover a number of routes.
A route is not merely the physical
~urface covered by the highway to be traversed, but connot·~<> the abstra:t concept
of line of travel. A difference in the two termini \Vill make two routes different
even if there is an overlappinp: surface of the road common to two routes.
Unless a scheme clearly indicates that the user of e~ery portion of a highway
covered by an intra-state notified "route" so conceived i'> prohibited. a·lso to an
Inter-state motor vehic1e operator, who really plies on a different rouh~ inasmuch as
his terinini are bound to be different from those of an intra-state rou~e, the inter5.tate op~ raters n1ay not be complete~y debarred from the user of the
overhipping part of an inter-state route.
A mere physical overlapping of the two
is not enough to exclude the private inter-state operators by any necessary
Implication. Such an exclusion must be made clear and unequivocal in the
scheme.
[496B. D. F·Hl
494
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] l s.c.1,t.
(4) The rules require that existing operators on each roui~ n1ust be named
and the numbers of th~ir vehicles must be gi_ven before they could be deemed
to be excluded from any part of a rgute.
Unless their names are mentioned
they cannot .come fonvard to object as persons i.~ffected. [497D-E]
(.S) The Inter-state operators were not meant to be denied tbe use of the
overlapping portions of routes covered by t

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
493
MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
v.
THE MYSORE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS.
May 17, 1974
(M. H. BEG ANDY. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Ac,, Sec. 68C-Jnter-stare operator3
wh~ther prohibited
ireni plyins: vehicles on intra-state routes-lt1eani11~ of route
and
areu--
1 ntrepreta~io11 of sche111e-Con1plete exclusion lvhether can be implied.
Certain Intra-state rcutes were nationalised under Chapter IV-A of' the Motor
\'chicles A~t. There wei;e three approved schemes of nationalisation namely
Anekal Scheme, Gulbarga Scheme and the Bangalore Scheme. Parts of these
Intra-state routes over-lapped inter-state routes over which private transporters
were granted permit9 to ply their vehicles on condition that they will neither
pick up nor drop passengers on any overlapping parts of routes.
The preamble to Anekal Scheme and Gulbarge Scheme do not state that
the scheme is of a total exclusion. The preamble to the Bangalore Scheme.
however, mentions the complete exclusion of all other operators from certain
routes. The Anckal Scheme gives the te1mini with intern1ediate J---.Oints.
The
names of the Inter-Sta-te o~rators have not been 1nentioned in any of these three
Schemes. The schemes show that the term "route'' is used in each scheme for
'5ervices between two termini,
The appellant Corporation objects to the permits granted to tho Inter-State
transporters in so fai: as they cqvcr overlapping portions of Intra-state routes
on the basis of three schemes.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : ( 1) There can be no doubt that the appellant corporation has
power to frame a scheme under Section 68(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, providing that Road Transport Services in general or in any particular class,
in
Felation to any area or route ol portion thereof should be run and operated
t)y the State Transport Undertaking whether to the exclusion, complete or
partial of other persons or otherwise. This power includes the power to ex-
('}ude even inter-state motor operators altogether from a part of any notified
route.
[494GJ
·
(2) Section 68C howe,·er requires as a condition precedent to any exclusion
of private operators that the scheme should give particulars of the nature of
services proposed to be rendered. the area of route proposed to be covered
and such oth~ particulars as may be prescribed. Each scheme has to be published in the Official Gazette. A scheme finally emerging after opportunities
arc given for objections by persons interested.
(495B-C]
(3) A scheme which totally excludes inter-state private operators fron1
using any part of a notified route must make the intention to do that clear.
The Act makes a distinction between notification of an area and of a route.
An area may cover a number of routes.
A route is not merely the physical
~urface covered by the highway to be traversed, but connot·~<> the abstra:t concept
of line of travel. A difference in the two termini \Vill make two routes different
even if there is an overlappinp: surface of the road common to two routes.
Unless a scheme clearly indicates that the user of e~ery portion of a highway
covered by an intra-state notified "route" so conceived i'> prohibited. a·lso to an
Inter-state motor vehic1e operator, who really plies on a different rouh~ inasmuch as
his terinini are bound to be different from those of an intra-state rou~e, the inter5.tate op~ raters n1ay not be complete~y debarred from the user of the
overhipping part of an inter-state route.
A mere physical overlapping of the two
is not enough to exclude the private inter-state operators by any necessary
Implication. Such an exclusion must be made clear and unequivocal in the
scheme.
[496B. D. F·Hl
494
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] l s.c.1,t.
(4) The rules require that existing operators on each roui~ n1ust be named
and the numbers of th~ir vehicles must be gi_ven before they could be deemed
to be excluded from any part of a rgute.
Unless their names are mentioned
they cannot .come fonvard to object as persons i.~ffected. [497D-E]
(.S) The Inter-state operators were not meant to be denied tbe use of the
overlapping portions of routes covered by the scheme. Their names were not
mentioned as required by the rules.
The Anekal and Gulbarga schemes did
not even talk of the complete exclusion. The Bangalore Scheme
mentions
complete e;q;lusion but this exclusion seemsr to be in respect of operators providing
services between the termini mentioned there and not merely using overlapping
portions, of the notified rules incident~l)y. No explan~tion is forthcoming as
to why names and the numbers of the inter-state transporters \Vere not mentioned
in the scheme.
[50JC-F]
Nilkanth Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar, [1962] I S.C.R. 728, Kelani
Valley Motor Transit Co. v. Colombo Ratnapura Ontnibus Co. [1946] A.C.
338' and Kondala Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,
A.LR. 1961 S.C. 82, distinguished.
'av1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1755
to
1756 of 1969, 362 to 363 and 1918 to 1920 of 1970 and 490 t<>
492 of 1973.
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
10th October, 1968, 11th March, 1969, 24th March, 1969 and 16th
June, 1969 of the Mysore High Court in W.P. Nos. 3 322 and 379 /
66, W.P. Nos. 800, 1186, 1188, 1190, 1191, 1228-31 1233/69 and
3910, 3913, 3921, and 3932/68, 1189 and 1192/69, 1234/69, 20682070/69 respectively and special leave petitions Nos. 2015 to 2112
and 2408 to 2412 of 1969. From the Judgment and order dated
I Ith November, 1969 and 16th June, 1969 of the Mysore High Court
in W.P. Nos. 3908, 3912, 3923, 3925, 3926, 3230, 3933 anq 3933/
68 and 2067, 2078 and 2080.2082/68.
Shyam/a Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for the appellants/Petitioners ..
. S. S. Ganguli and H. K. Puri for respondents.
· P K. Pillai for the respondent.
A. G. Ratnaparkhi for the respondent.
A·
B
c
D
E
S. V_ Gupte, M. R. V. Achar, M. Rangaswamy and B. P. Singh
for respondent.
F
Y. S. Chitale, M. Rangaswamy, M. R. V. A.char and B. P. Singh
for respondent.
D. N. Mishra for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
·BEG, J.-There are twenty two appeals by Special leave together
with thirteen connected special leave petitions involving a common question of Jaw for decision before us.
This question arises out of three
approved schemes, which may be called the Anekal Scheme dated
15-4-1959, the Gulbarga Scheme dated 18-2-1960, and the Bangalore
Scheme dated 7-6-1960, for the nationalisation under Chapter IVA of
tho Mot:>c V chicles Act, I 939 (h~reinafter referred to as 'the Act'), of
transport services on certain routes lying within the State of Mysore.
But, parts of these intra-state routes overlap inter-state routes over
which private transporters were granted permits and then their renewals
by the State Transport authorities to ply their vehicles. The Mysore
G
H
t
({
(
f ,
I
A
B
c
D
E
F
\
G
H
MYSORE TRANSPORT V. MYSORE REVENUE (Beg,!.)
4,95
State Road Transport Corporation objects to these permits in so far
as they oover overlapping portions of intra-state routes. The common
question of law which arises may be formulated as follows:
"Can a permit be granted to an Inter-State Transport Operator for the whole of his route despite the fact that a part of
the route ov2rlaps a part of a notified intra-State route" ?
. There can be no doubt that the Mysore State Transport Undertalcing has the power to frame a scheme under section 68C of Chapter
IV A of the Act, providing "in the public interest that road transport
services in general or any particular class of such service in relation
to mea or route or portion thereof should be 'run and operated by the
State Transport Undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or
partial, of other persons or otherwise". This power includes the power
to exclude even inter-state motor operators altogether from a part of
any notified route. (See: Nilkamh Prasad & Ors. Vs. Staie of Bihar( 1 ).
Standard Motor Union Pw Ltd. Vs. State of Kera/a & Ors('); S. Abdul
Khader Saheb Vs. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribuna! & Ors.(")
The Transport authorities have no power to deviate from or modify tk
terms of approved schemes which have the force of law.
They can
issue or otherwise deal with permits only in accordance with the provisions of the schemes which may be either partial or total exclusion of private operators from notified routes. We have to determine
whether the schemes before us are of partial or total exclusion.
Section 68C requires, as a condition precedent to any exclnsion
or private operators nnder a scheme of nationalimtion from "any area
or route or portion thereof", that the scheme should give "particulars
of the nature of services proposed to be rendered, the area or route
proposed to be covered and such other particulars respecting
thereto
as
may
be prescribed".
Each
scheme has
to be
published
in
the
official Gazette
oand
also
"in
such
manner as the
State
Govt.. may direct".
A scheme finally
emerges, after opportunities given under Section 680 of the Act for
objections by persons interested in providirig transport facilities as wen
as by local and police authorities within the area or. upon the routes
proposed to be covered by oa scheme, as an approved scheme in which
the original proposals may or may not have been modified.
Each
scheme so approved can be either cancelled or modified by the State
Transport Undertalcing under Section 68E of the Act in accordance
with the procedure laid down by Sections 68C and 680 of the Act.
The power of the State Transport Undertaking to prohibit the use
of >any portion of a route by Inter-state operators bas not been questi~ned before us,.
~evertheless, it may be pertinent to point out that
this Court thus md1cated m Saghir Ahmed & Anr. v. State of U.P. &
Ors.,(') the nature of the right of the public to use public roads (at
page 717) :
"But the right of the public to use motor vehicles on the
public road cannot, in any sense, be regarded as a right
(1) [1962](!} Suppl. S.C.R. 728.
(2) [1969]{1) S.C.R. 464.
(3) AIR 1973 S.C. 534.
(4) [1955] I S.C.R. 707, 717.
496
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 1 S.C.R.
created by the Motor
Vehicles Act.
The
right
exists
anterior to any legislation on this subject as an incident of
public rights over a highway.
The State only controls and
regulates it for the purpose of ensuring safety, peace, health
and good morals of the public.
Once the position is accepted that a member of the public is entitled to ply mother
vehicles on the public road as an incident of his right of
passage over a highway, the question is
really immaterial
whether he plies a vehicle for pleasure or pastime or for the
purpose of trade and business.
The nature of the right in
respect of the highway is not in any way afieeted thereby and
we cannot agree wil!J the learned Advocate-General that the
user of a public road for purposes of trade is an extraordinary or special use of the highway which can be acquired
only under special sanction from the State".
It is enough for the purpose of the cases before us to note the distinction between the right to use a road which may be a part of Q.
notified "route" and the right to ply motor vehicles on hire upon "
"route" for which a permit has to be obtained under the Act. Notification of a route under a scheme prevents issue of permits contrarv
to the scheme for the route.
Assuming for the purposes of the cas~:,
before us, that the State Transport Undertaking can totally exclude
imer-statc private operators from using any part of a notified route, a
scheme which has that effect must, at least, make the intention to do
ihat clear before it can prevent th-e exercise of an otherwise legal ricllt
to ply motor vehicles for hire on a public highway subject to regula·
tion of this kind of user by permits issues under the Act.
The question is, in our opinion, one of interpretation of the scheme formulated
in each case.
Before interpreting each of the three schemes mentioned
above, we wi_ll refer to the relevant provisions which have a bearing
on. questions of interpretation of the schemes and of the particulars
gf\·en therein.
As each scheme of natiorralisation is to be prepared in public interest, Section 68C requires the State Transport Undertaking to give
particulars "of the nature of services proposed to be rendered by it".
A distinction is made between notification of an "area" and of a
•·route". An area, which has to be notified under Section 2(i) of the
Act, may cover a number of routes.
A route, as defined by the insertion of (28A) made by the Act 56 of 1969, in Section 2 of the
Act, is "a line of travel which specifies the high-way which may be
traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another". Whatever may have been the meaning of the word "route" before this insertion, it appears to us that, after this cJarification, •a route is not merely
the physical surface covered by the high-way to be traversed, but the
abstract concept of '(a line of travel", which connects one terminus
with another, has also been introduced into the legal definition of a
"route". The two concepts me now so interlinked that a route would
not be properly indicated by merely specifying the high-way which may
be traversed without giving its two termini. And, a difference in the
two termini will make two routes different even if there is an overlap"
ping surface of the road common to routes. In other wordo, the two
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
"(
H
'
f
A
B
c
D
MYSORE TRANSPORT I'. MYSORE REVENUE (Beg, J.)
497
termini are an essential part of the concept of a route. Notification of
routes takes place for purposes of nationalisation of transport servtces
on the routes.
The routes arc not nationalised as physical surface~
of notified areas reserved for use by State owned vehicles only, but
what is nationalkcd is the provision of certain transport services on
those routes.
Unless " scheme clearlv indicates that the user of every portion of a
highway covered by an infra-state notified route is prohibit·id also to an
inter-state motor vehicle operator, who really plies on a different
"route'' inasmuch as its termini arc bound to be different from those
of an intra-state route, the inter-state operator may not be completely
d:barred from the user of the overlapping part of an intra-state route.
A mere physical overlapping of the two may not be enough to exclude
the private inter-state operators by any nec·cssary implication.
II the
intention is to exclude such user by an operator of another route a
part of which over-laps a notified route, that intention must be made
clear and unequivocal by the scheme in order to have that effect.
Section 68C 11lso mentions other particulars of a scheme which
may be prescribed. These particulars have been prescribed in the State
of Mysore by means of rules notified in the Mysore Gazette dated
27-2-1958. The relevant portion of the first rule reads as follows :
"l. Every scheme or modified scheme
for
passenger
transport service shall contain the following particulars :-
1. The area in rdation to which the scheme is proposed.
2. Whether City /Town service or moffusil service.
E
3. The route or routes (with their starting points, terr
G
II
mini, intermediate stations and route length) in which the
State Road Transport Undertaking proposes to introduce its
services to the exclusion of private operators.
4. The number of existing stage carriages on each route
with their number of trips and the names of their operators.
5. The maximum and minimum number of stage carriages proposed to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking to the exclusion of private operators in relation to
each route and the type and seating capacity of each vehicle.
6. The maximum number of trips proposed to be performed on each route.
7. Number of vehicles intended to be kept in reserve to
maintain the service and to provide for sp·;;cial occasions".
With regard to the above mentioned particu~ars, it was submitted_
on behalf of the inter-state operators. that sub-rules 3 and 4 of rule 1
set out above, require that existing operators on each route must be
named and the nutnbcrs of their vehicles must b2 eiven before thcY
could be deemed to be excluded from any part of-a route. It was
also urged that, unless the scheme indicates which persons are treated
as providing a service or plying on the notified route, they could
not be expected to come forward to object as persons affected. Hence_
498
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 1 s.c.R.
it is submitted, if the State Transport Undertaking itself treated them
as_ JX'rsons unaffected by nationalisation of transport services on cert·a~ mtra-state routes, its intention would appear to be to leave untouched or preserve the rights of inter-state operators who were already
there merely to use parts of notified routes. The argument was that
the mter-state operators were, by a clear implication, permitted by
each scheme to use overlapping parts of notified intra-state routes.
They were, it was urged, thus mrnnt to be excluded from the purview
of the prohibition in each scheme.
. In so?Je of the cases before us the Regional Transport Officer had
himself either granted or renewed the permits of the inter-state operators. Jn other cases, where the Regional Transport Officer had rejected the applications of the inter-state operators concerned, the operators had succeeded in ob~aining permits from the final state Appellate
Authority functioning under the Act. The High Court had, in every
case, upheld the grants of permits to the inter-state operators. It bad
found the schemes to be ambiguous. But, it overruled the contention
that the schemes warranted total prohibition or exclusion of inter-state
operators on overlapping parts of notified routes mainly on the ground
that such a contention could not be advanced for the first time before
it in the course of arguments.
It was also contended that, the Manager of the appellant Corporation had impliedly admitted before the Transport authorities that
inter-state operators were not totally prohibited by any scheme from
using overlapping portions because he confined his objection to the
sufficiency of the number of buses serving on the overlappin~ parts
of routes and had not relied upon any parts of the schemes for any
alleged total prohibition of the use of the overlapping parts of notified
routes by the inter-state operators.
It may be mentioned here th•at a condition had been imposed by
the final Appellate Transport Authority upon each inter-state operator
that he will neither pick up nor drop passengers on any part of the
overlapping notified route.
Therefore, one of the questions argued
before us is whether the Transport authorities had any power or jurisdiction to grant permits to inter-state operators even. by annexing such ·
conditions so that overlapping portions of notified routes could be
merely used by the inter-state operators concerned for taking their
stage carriages and passangers through them but not to provide services for passengers to or from any place falling upon any portions of
the notified routes. It was submitted, on behalf of the appellant Corporation, that all that the Transport authorities could do w~s to ll!v"
.effect to the provisions of each scheme but not to do anythmg which
may be •a modification of the scheme.
Although, the actions of the
Transport
authorities. and
the
conduct or a concession of the Manager of the Corporation may be
relevant in considering whether a scheme was so framed as to clearly
convey to the officials of the Corporation 11nd to the '.f~a_nsport aut~o
rities concerned that it was a scheme of total proh1b1tJon extendmg
to even user of any portion of an o~erlapping noti!ied ro~te by an
inter-state operator, yet, the real quest10n to be considered 1s whether
A
cf·
B
l
(
c
D
E
F
r '
G
~
... ,,
H
A
B
c
D
E
G
r
H
MYSORE TRANSPORT V. MYSORE REVENUE (Beg,/.)
,f,i)i)
the scheme itself in each case, on the contents of it and the language
employed by the framers of it, warrants total exclusion of the kind
contended for before us on behalf of the Corporation.
It is true that this Court does not ordinarily interfere with the descrction of the High Court to refuse to allow a question to be raised
for the first time in arguments before it. But, it is pointed out that
the question raised before the High Court and argued before us is one
of jurisdiction or power of the Transport authorities which goes to
the root of the case so that the High Court should have permitted it
to he raised and decided it.
We find that the High Court did, albeit
indirectly, consider the question by holding that the schemes were
ambiguous and did not rule out the interpretation that they were not
schemes of total prohibition as the schemes could and should have
done if that was intended. The High Court had also correctly made
observations indicating that, where such an intention of total prohibition of even the case of a portion of the notified route is present, the
intention must be communicated in clear enough language so as not
to leave the transport authorities in any doubt as to what they ar" to
enforce.
And, as we have granted special leave on this very question
and have heard arguments on it, we will consider the question briefly
and not dispose of the cases before us simply on the ground that the
question should have been raised at an earlier stage on behalf of the
appellant Corporation.
We will, therefore, examine the contents of
each of the three approved schemes in which the preamble and clauses
3 to 7 have a special bearing on the question under consideration.
Jn the Anekal Scheme, the preamble does not state that the scheme
is of total exclusion.
Clauses 3 to 1 7 of the approved scheme arc
stated as follows :
"3. The route or routes (with their startAs in st;1.te111ent J appended
ing points, tenn1n1,
intermediate
stations
and
route (length) ln
which the State Transport Undertaking \viii introduce its services to
the exclusion of private operators.
4. The number of existing stage carriaAs in statement 2 appended.
ges- on each route with the nuinber of
trips and the names of their operators.
5. The maximum and n1inimum number (a) Maximum and rninin1un1 nun1ber
of stage carriages to be operated by
or stage carriages to be operated·
!he State Road :rranspor~ UndertakAs in Statement I appended
'
tng to the exclusion of private opera- (b) Type and Seat in-; capacity of each
tors in relation to each route and the
vehicle :-
'"
ty~ and seating capacity of each
Semi-saloon, single
decker~. The
ve1ucle.
seating capacity of each vehicle
is 36 to 45 seats.
6. The maximum nun1bcr of trips to As in statement t appended.
be performed on e1ch route.
7. The number of vel~ides to be, kept in
25 per cent of the operatin: fteet."
reserve to ma1nta1n the servtccs and
to provide for special occasions.
In the. <;Julbarga s~heme, the preamble states that approval is given
to the ongmally published proposals subject to certain modifications
One of the modifications is that the words "or any portion thereof;
500
. SUPREME. COURT REPORTS
[1975] l s.c.R.
wherever they appear in column 2 of the statement appended to the
scheme published by the General Manager shall be deleted. The relevant clauses 3 to 7 read as follows :
.. 3. The route or routes-(with their starting points •. termini, intermediate
stations and route length) in v,:hich
the State Road Transport Undcrt1k·
ing shall introduce its services, to
the exclusion of private operators.
4. The number of existing
stage
carriages on each route with the
number of trips and the names of
their operators.
5. The maximum and minimum number of stage carriages to be operated
by the State Road Transport Undertaking to the exclusion of private
operators in relation to each route
and the type an:i -s~ating c1pi:ity
of each vehicle.
..
,
6. The maximum number of trips !o·
be performed on each route.
As in statement appended.
·At present, only the l\.1ysore Government Road Transport D~partm~nt
is operating service on these rout\!S,
and the number or existing stage
carriages and the number of trips
are as in statement appended.
(a) Maximum and. minimum number
of stage carriages to be operated;
As in statement appended.,·
(b) Type and seating· capacity of each
. vehicle.
·
S.!mi-saloon, singk:-d'.!ck.!rs. The
seating capacity or ea~h vehicle
is 26 to. 5 5 seats.
As in statement appended.
7. The number of vehicles to be kept, T\venty-five per-cent or the
opcr~
in reserve and to maintain the serating fleet ...
vices to provide for special occasions.
The preamble to the Bangalore scheme mentions the following
modifications_ of the ·original proposals:
·
"(a) that the passenger transport servires on the routes
appearing at sl. Nos. 1 to 22 am! 24, 25. 26, 27 and
53 of the statement appended including services
between any two places therein should be run and
op.-:rated by the State Transport Undertaking to the ·
complete exclusion of other operators :
(b) Subject to (a) above, the State Transport Undertakjng should operate services on
the
remaining
routes appearing in the statement appended between
the two specified terminals only, to the complete exclusion of all other operators, excluding the intermediate routes;"
The relevant clauses 3 to 7 arc given here as follows:
-·3. Tbc route or routes (with their starting
points, termini,
intern1ediate sta.
tioos and route length) in which the
State Road Transport Undertaking
sball introduce its services to the exclusion of private operators.
(a) The passenger
transport
service" on the routes appearing at
SI. Nos. 1 to 22, and 24, 25, 26, 27.
39 and 53 of the
statement
appended including services bet-
\Veen
any two
places therein
should be run and operated by
the. State. Transport Undertaking
to the complete ·exclusion. of other
·operators;
-
A
B
c
D
E
i
F
G
II
A
B
c
D
E
F
G ,
H
MYSORE TRANSPORT V. MYSORE REVENUE (Beg, J.)
5 0 !
4. The number of existing stage carriages on each route with the nu1nbcr
of trips and the names of their operoperators.
(b) Subject to (a) above, the State
Transport
Undertaking
shouJd
operate services on the remaining
routes app~aring in the statcn1ent
appended between the two specified terminals only to the complete
exclusion of all other operators,
excluding the intern1ediatc routes:
At present, only the !\1ysore Government Road Transport Department is
operating services on these routes,
and in the nu1nbcr of existing
stage carriages and the number
uf
trips
are
as
in
statement
appended.
·
5. (u) The n1aximu1n and
1nini111un1 (a) tvlaximum and minimun1 nun1ber of
nLunber of stage carriag~s to b..: op.!-
ratcd by the State Road Transport
Undertaking to the exdu.;ion of
private operators in relation to
each route and
(b) tile type and seating capacity of
each vehicle.
stag.!
c:trriag~s to
b~ operated;
As in the statem'ent appended.
(b) Typ~ and seating capacity of each
vehicle ...
Semi-saloon,
single-deckers,
the
seating capacity of t:ach
vehicl~ is
26 to 35 . seats.
6. The n1aximu1n nu111ber of trips to be As in statement appended.
perforn1ed on each route.
7. The number of vehicles to be kept Twenty-five per cent of the opcratin~
in reserve to maintain the services
fleet."
and to provide for special occasions.
It may be mentioned here that clauses 3 and 4 of the three schemes
ore apparently intended to carry out the provisions of sub-rules 3 and
4 of the State Transport Undertaking Mysore State Rules, 1958, set
out above. In the Anekal scheme, the appended statement mentioired
in clause 3 (in purported compliance of sub rule 3) gives the termim
with intermediate points thereby indicating that the exclusive servke
on each route is intended to be one which takes place only bet ween
the termini given there and not as a mere incident of service between
other termini. The second statement mentioned in clause 4 (in purported compliance of sub-rule 4) gives the number of the existing
stage carriages and the names of their operators serving the prohibited routes indicated in terms of their termini. The strongest point of
the inter-state operators is that their names are not mentioned in the
second appended statement. Hence, they could not either object as
persons whose rights were meant to he affected or who could be
conipcnsated under Section 68G after necessary modification or cancellation of their permits for the overlapping portions. We, therefore.
think that the contention that inter-state operators were apparently not
meant to be denied the mere use of the overlapping portions of routes
covered by this scheme is well supported. In fact, this is
the more
reasonable inference. Similarly, the appended statements of the Gulbarga scheme show that the term "route" is used in the scheme for
services between two termini and that persons merely using portions
of the route while travelling between other termini are not totally prohibited the user of the overlapping route. Lastly, as regards the Bangalore scheme, the case of the appellant Corporation may seem better
inasmuch as the words used there are : "the complete exclusion of all
502
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 1 S.C.R.
other operators excluding the intermediate routes''. But, even here,
A
the exclusion appears to be only of operators providing services between the termini mentioned there and not merely using overlapping
portions of the notified routes incidentally. If the exclusion of those
using overlapping portions of the surface of the highway common to
two different routes was also really intended, they should have been
named in the appended statement and the numbers of their stage ·
B
carriages should have been given. No explanation is forthcoming for
this omission. Therefore, the interpretation of the three schemes
advanced on behalf of the inter-state operators is more reasonable. In
any case, if the intention was really to exclude even the user of the
"ii
overlappin!J portions of notified routes by inter-state operators, we do
not sec why the State Transport Undertaking should have waited for
so long and not modified the scheme, as provided by Section SSE of
c
the Act, and made its intention clear instead of allowing litigation over
this issue for such a Jong time.
On behalf of the appellants, reliance was sought to be placed
strongly upon the meaning assigned to the term "route" by a Division
Bench of this Court in Nilkanth Prasad's case
(supra), where the
view of the Privy Council in Kelani Valley Motor Transit Co. v.
Colombo Ratnapura Omnibus Co., (11) was distinguished on the ground
that the context of the ordinances before the Privy Council for
interpretation indicated that a "route" stood for "an abstract conception of a line of travel between one terminus and another, and to be
something distinct from the highway traversed". Nilkanth Prasad's
case (supra) was decided before the insertion of the definition in
Section 2(28'A) of the Act before us. In it reliance was placed upon
Kondala Rao v. A ndhra Pradesh
State Road Transport
Corporation,(') where the real question considered by this Court was whether
a route could also be an area. It was observed in Nilkanth Prasad's
case (supra) (at p. 737-738) :-
"The distinction between "route" as the notional line
and "road" as the physical. track disappears in the working
of Chap. IVA, because you cannot cuqail the route without curtailing a portion of the road, and the ruling of the
Court to which we have referred, would also show that even
if the route was different, the area at least would be the
same. The ruling of the Judicial Committee cannot be made
applicable to the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Chap.
IVA, where the intention is to exclude private operators
completely from running over certain sectors or, routes vested
in Slate Transport Undertakings. In our opinion, therefore.
the appellants were rightly held to be disentitled to run over
those portions of their routes which were notified as part of
the scf.:.!n1e".
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the inter-state operators
relied strongly on H. C. Narayana,rypa & Ors. v. The Sta/le of Mysore
& Ors., ( 3 ) where a Constitution Bench of 5 Judges of this Court
(l) [1946] A.C. 338.
(2) AIR 1%1 S.C. 82.
(3) [1960] (3}S.C.R. 742.
D
E
F
G
II
A
B
c
D
F
G
MYSORE TRANSPORT V. MYSORE REVENUE (Beg, J.)
5 0 3
'
interpreted the very scheme dated 13·1-1959 relating to the Anekal
area which is one of the three schemes for interpretation before us.
It was held there (at p. 746) :-
"Statement I sets out the description of fourteen routes
with their intermediate points, route length, number of buses
to be operated and the maximum number of trips to be per·
formed on each route". By column 4 "the number of existing stage carriages on each route with tbe number of trips
and the names of their operators" are described
"as in
statement 2 appended''. Statement 2 sets out the names and
places of business of fifty-six operators together with the
routes operated and the numbers of the stage carriages and
trips made by those operators. In the Anekal area, there are
thirty-one routes, which are served by stage carriages operated
by private operators, and by the approval of the scheme,
only fourteen of those routes are covered by the scheme".
Hence, it was urged that the term "route" was used in the schemes
under consideration with reference to a service rendered to passengers
between certain termini. Its notification did not, it is urged, ipso facto,
signify a blanket-like interdict against the user of any and every por·
tion of a route conceived of as a prohibited area reserved for the use
Clf State owned carriages only which private operators could not en·
croach upon or invade. The Act itself gives power to nationalise motor
transport services upon and not the surfaces of public highways.
Whatever may be said about the correctness of the decision of thi~
Court in Nilkanth Prasad's case (supra) in the context of the schemo
before this Court for consideration in that case and the provisions of
the Act as they stood then, we do not think that the ratio decidendi
of that case is applicable here. Upon the contents of the schemes before
us for interpretation we find that only operators named therein or those
who seek to provide "services" upon the routes mentioned in the
schemes, in the sense that they carry passengers travelling from one
place to another situated only upon the notified routes,
could be
totally excluded from using the highways which the notified routes
cover. We think that conditions were rightly imposed by the final
Transport Appellate Authority on the permits of interstate operators
to bring out what it understood the scheme to mean in each case.
The result is that we do not see sufficient reason to interfere with
the view taken by the High Court and dismiss these appeals and the
special leave petitions. The parties will bear their own costs in this
Court.
P.H.P.
Appeals dismissed.
14-L 1775-p. Cl/75