# Y. S. Kondala Rao arrd Ors v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport CorporattiD

- **Citation:** [1975] 1 S.C.R. 615
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-08-08
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1801 of 1972
- **Bench:** P. Jaganmohan Reddy, M. H. Beg, A. Alagiriswami
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/y-s-kondala-rao-arrd-ors-v-andhra-pradesh-state-road-transport-corporattid-6207
- **Pages:** 28

## Headnote

B
Motor Yehiclea Act, 1939, Chapter IY A-Scheme private operators from the
notified area or route-Licence to any operator whose route traversed or overlop~li
tm)' part or whole of notified route, if can be granted.
'
Motor Yehiclea Act, 1939, Section 2 (28-A)-Definition of "route"-"Route
and highway, if can be equated-Private operator, whether can be completely exc/udei
on a route which overlaps even a portion of notified route.
The Mysore State Road Transport Corporation opera~ on the notified routt
c
under Ch. IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, between Hiriyur and V.V. Sagar.
It objected to the renewal of a permit to the third respondent for the route Hiriyur
~.
to Chitradurga and back via V. V. Sagar, Hosadurga and Janakal on the grou.ad
that this renewal will authorise an overlapping over three miles on the notified route.
Both the Regional Transport Authority, Chitradurga and the State TranspOit
Authority, Bangalore, negatived the objection. The writ petition filed by the
appellant was dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka in limine. The applica~
for the grant of a certificate of fitness under Art. 133(l){c) was also rejected.
D
appeal has been filed after obtaining special leave agamst that dismissal ordtt'.
It was contended for the appellant that the Bangalore scheme under Ch. IV-A
of the Act prohibits overlapping of the route or routes of private operators on a
part or whole of the notified route and therefore, permit to operate bus service ovt!i/
the notified route cannot be granted to the third respondent.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD :-By majority (P. Jaganmohan Reddy and A. Alagiriswami, JJ.) c•
E
IV of the Act in specific terms provides a complete and, and in the circumstance
1
a satisfactory machinery for reasonably regulating the exclusion of all or some of tke
private operators from the notified area or route. [618G]
Y. S. Kondala Rao arrd Ors. v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport CorporattiD
and Ors., A.I.R. 1961 SC 82 relied on. Sasaghir Ahmed v. State of U.P. [195~
1 S.C.R. 707 held not applicable to the scheme notified under Ch IV-A of the A .
Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that if there is a prohibitia.
to operate on a notified route or routes no licences can be granted to any operator
F
whose route traversed or overlapped any part or whole of that notified route. Btli
in My11ore State Road Transport Corporation v. The Mysore Appellate Tribunal On.
(C. As. Nos. 1755-1756 of 1968 etc. decided on 17-5-1974, this Court has taken "
contrary view. [622H]
S. Abdul Khader Saheb v. The Mysore Revenue Appellate TribuMl, BanKalo~
tmd Ors. [1973] 2 S.C.R. 925 Nilkanth Prasad and Or11. v. State of Bihar, (1962] SuN'-
(1) S.C.R. 728, Abdul Gaffoor v. State of Mysore, [1955) 1 S.C.R. 701,Kelani Va/11.
Motor Transit Co. Ltd. v. Colombo-Retnapura Omnibus Co. Ltd. [1946) A.C. 338,C .•
G
C.-Motor Service, Myaore v. The State_ of Mysore and Another [1962] Supp. (1) S.C.R.
717, Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. The Mysore Revenue Appe/lat•
1
Tribunal, [1965] 1 S.C.R. 841 and Mohan/al Chunnilal Kothari v. TribhoJJan Haribh6l
Tamboli, [1963] 2 S.C.R. 707 referred to,
(ii) In any case under s. 2 (28A) inserted by s. 2 of Act 56 of 1969 the word "route••
ha.s been defined as meaning " a line of travel which specifies the highway which rna
, .
..
be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another". This d~
tion correla~ the notional line of travel between two termini with the ortioa
H
of the highway ~hich has to be traversed on that ro1;1te .. It i.!, therefoco, a~areo1
that where a pnvate transport owner makes an application to operate on a route
which overlaps even a portion of the notified route, i.e. where the part of tho highway
to be used by the private transport owner traverses on a line on the same hi hwa
on the notified route, then that application has to be considered only in the li~b.t J
616
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 1 S.C.R.
the scheme as notified. If any conditions are p

## Text

_Characters 0–39,828 of 90,899. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39828 for what follows._

GHi
A
MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
v .
../
MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
August 8, 1974
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, M. H. BEG AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.]
B
Motor Yehiclea Act, 1939, Chapter IY A-Scheme private operators from the
notified area or route-Licence to any operator whose route traversed or overlop~li
tm)' part or whole of notified route, if can be granted.
'
Motor Yehiclea Act, 1939, Section 2 (28-A)-Definition of "route"-"Route
and highway, if can be equated-Private operator, whether can be completely exc/udei
on a route which overlaps even a portion of notified route.
The Mysore State Road Transport Corporation opera~ on the notified routt
c
under Ch. IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, between Hiriyur and V.V. Sagar.
It objected to the renewal of a permit to the third respondent for the route Hiriyur
~.
to Chitradurga and back via V. V. Sagar, Hosadurga and Janakal on the grou.ad
that this renewal will authorise an overlapping over three miles on the notified route.
Both the Regional Transport Authority, Chitradurga and the State TranspOit
Authority, Bangalore, negatived the objection. The writ petition filed by the
appellant was dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka in limine. The applica~
for the grant of a certificate of fitness under Art. 133(l){c) was also rejected.
D
appeal has been filed after obtaining special leave agamst that dismissal ordtt'.
It was contended for the appellant that the Bangalore scheme under Ch. IV-A
of the Act prohibits overlapping of the route or routes of private operators on a
part or whole of the notified route and therefore, permit to operate bus service ovt!i/
the notified route cannot be granted to the third respondent.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD :-By majority (P. Jaganmohan Reddy and A. Alagiriswami, JJ.) c•
E
IV of the Act in specific terms provides a complete and, and in the circumstance
1
a satisfactory machinery for reasonably regulating the exclusion of all or some of tke
private operators from the notified area or route. [618G]
Y. S. Kondala Rao arrd Ors. v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport CorporattiD
and Ors., A.I.R. 1961 SC 82 relied on. Sasaghir Ahmed v. State of U.P. [195~
1 S.C.R. 707 held not applicable to the scheme notified under Ch IV-A of the A .
Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that if there is a prohibitia.
to operate on a notified route or routes no licences can be granted to any operator
F
whose route traversed or overlapped any part or whole of that notified route. Btli
in My11ore State Road Transport Corporation v. The Mysore Appellate Tribunal On.
(C. As. Nos. 1755-1756 of 1968 etc. decided on 17-5-1974, this Court has taken "
contrary view. [622H]
S. Abdul Khader Saheb v. The Mysore Revenue Appellate TribuMl, BanKalo~
tmd Ors. [1973] 2 S.C.R. 925 Nilkanth Prasad and Or11. v. State of Bihar, (1962] SuN'-
(1) S.C.R. 728, Abdul Gaffoor v. State of Mysore, [1955) 1 S.C.R. 701,Kelani Va/11.
Motor Transit Co. Ltd. v. Colombo-Retnapura Omnibus Co. Ltd. [1946) A.C. 338,C .•
G
C.-Motor Service, Myaore v. The State_ of Mysore and Another [1962] Supp. (1) S.C.R.
717, Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. The Mysore Revenue Appe/lat•
1
Tribunal, [1965] 1 S.C.R. 841 and Mohan/al Chunnilal Kothari v. TribhoJJan Haribh6l
Tamboli, [1963] 2 S.C.R. 707 referred to,
(ii) In any case under s. 2 (28A) inserted by s. 2 of Act 56 of 1969 the word "route••
ha.s been defined as meaning " a line of travel which specifies the highway which rna
, .
..
be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another". This d~
tion correla~ the notional line of travel between two termini with the ortioa
H
of the highway ~hich has to be traversed on that ro1;1te .. It i.!, therefoco, a~areo1
that where a pnvate transport owner makes an application to operate on a route
which overlaps even a portion of the notified route, i.e. where the part of tho highway
to be used by the private transport owner traverses on a line on the same hi hwa
on the notified route, then that application has to be considered only in the li~b.t J
616
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 1 S.C.R.
the scheme as notified. If any conditions are placed then those conditions have
to be fulfilled and if there is a total prohibition then the application must be rejected.
·
{622B-C]
Kclani Valley Motor Transit Co. Ltd. v. Colombo-Ratnapura Omnibus Co. Ltd.
[1946] A. C. 338, }~ J. Kodala Rao and Ors. v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporatiorr and Ors., AIR [1961] S.C. 82 and NilkanthPrasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar·
[1962] Supp. (1) S.C.R. 728 referred.
(iii) ln as much as Hiriyur to V.V. Sagar route granted to the third respondent
overlaps the notified route Cbitradurga to Hiriyur, there can be no doubt that no
permit or renewal can be granted. This is so even if it overlaps however short the
distance of the route. There is no justification for holding that the integrity of the
notified scheme is not affected if the overlapping is under five miles or because a
condition has been stipulated in the permit that the operators will not pick up or set
down any passengers on the overlapped route. [625G; 626A-B]
'HELD :-Per Beg J. (dissenting)
(i) It is not correct to say that the views expressed in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation's cases decided on 17-5-1975 arc not reconcilable with earlier dcci-
·sions. and, in particular, with Nilkallth Prasad's case. It is well-established that the
·principle of a case is to be determined by taking into account the facts treated by the
Judge deciding a case as material and his decision 'as based thereon'. The provi·
sions of Bangalore scheme disclose that there were altogether 94 routes separately
numbered. Each route is identified by its termini with a separate column for inter·
'mediate stations of each route. Out of these routes only 29 arc placed in class (a)
·and the rest in class (b). In class (a), one could reasonably assume complete exClusion
of private operators but not in class (b) where exclusion of
private op~rators from overlapping parts of routes was expressly
exempted.
The Bench, in its decision of 17-5-1974 was unable to relate the facts of the cases
before it to a prohibition of overlapping of routes. This also meant that it could
not determine whether cases before the Court relating to the Bangalore scheme fell
within class (a) or class (b). It also pointed out that the Mysorc Transport undertaking had the remedy for this uncertain state of affairs in its own hands if complete
exclusion of private operators from every overlapping part of a notified route was
also intended by the framers of the scheme. It could have gone before the State
\vith a proposal to get the Bangalore scheme appropriately clarified and modified
under sec. 68-E of the Act. Before asking the Court to infer complete exclusion,
;it was essential to show that the overlapping part involved in a case falls at least
under class (a) of notified routes. In as much as all the cases before the Bench were
.decided on a common question of law, it is very difficult to discover any flaw in the
reasoning of the Division Bench decision. [629H, 632B-H]
.
(ii) The reasons why the bench of this Court in its judgment dated 17-5-74, did
not equate the term "route'' with "road'' were two fold ; firstly, a different concept
·uodet1ay each of the three schemes before the Court, including the Bangalore
scheme, and the relevant rules to be observed in framing such schemes; and, secondly,
the newly introduced definition constituted an amendment of or a departure from the
definition of 'route" found in Ni/kanlh Prasad's case (supra). Obviously, neither
Nilkarrlh Prasad's case
nor other cases are applicable authorities either on
any
question
of interpretation
of the provisions
of the Bangalore
~Scheme or on the question whether the law giving the meaning of "route''.
_There was no clear definition of the term "route". Nilkanth Prasad's case(supra)
had practically identified the term route with a road and contained an observation
:that the "route" vested in the Undertaking. If this view was to be carried to its
logical conclu'sion, the State Transport Undertaking could exclude even the user of
a "road by anyone for any purpose whatsoever provided it notified a route which
ran over it. Such a consequence appeared to be quite alarming. ln any case, until
'it scheme made it clear what was really excluded, Court had to be careful not to
·exclude operators who may be serving an urgent public need without damaging the
·interests of any State Undertaking. In the definition of "route" introduced by the
.amending Act 56 of 1966, there is a clear distinction between "the line of travel"
.between two termini, which a route is, and the highway which is to be traversed by
-a motor vehicle to which a "route" as a "line of travel'' may be assigned. The new
definition was not intended to merely declare the law, which is a judicial function,
but to amend the law as declared by this Court in Nilkanth 'Prasad's case so as to
·bring it in line with public needs and conveniences. It answered a "felt necessity",
In this view of the matter it could not be urge~! that either Nilka11th Prasad's case or
A
B
•
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
0
F
G
H
MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP.. V, APPELLATE
617
TRIBUNAL (Jagallmohar~ Reddy, J.)
that S. Abdul Khader Sahib's case, which do not deal with the law as the Division
Bench found laid down in the amended provision would stand in the way of the view
taken in the judgment of 17-5-1974. [634D-E; 637H; 638A-B; 639F; 640B]
<!ii) If the concept of a r~ute is UFJderstood to mean the mere overlapping of some
portwns of route, whether 1t falls m class (a) or class (b) of the routes mentioned
against heading 3 of the Bangalorc Scheme, it would not debar a private operator
from plying on his own but different route which is not notified at ali.(642B)
·
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1801 of 1972.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
26th November, 1968 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No.
4068 of 1968.
Sh}'amla Pappu and Vineet Kumar for the appellant.
The Judgment of P. Jaganmohan Reddy and A. Alagiris\\ami, JJ.
was delivered by Jaganmohan Reddy, J. M. H. Beg, J. gave a dissenting Opinion.
JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.-The Mysore State Road Tr?.nsport
Corporation, the appellant hereinafter called "the
corporation"
operates on the notified route under Ch. IV of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939-hereinafter referred to as ''the act"-between Hiriyur and
V.V. Sagar. It objected to the renewal of a permit to the third respondent C. Abdul Rahim for the route Hiriyur to Chitrad'urga and
back via V.V. Sagar, Hosadurga and Janakal on the ground that this
renewal will authorise an overlapping over three miles on the notified
route. Both the Regional Transport Authority, Chitradurga and the
State Transport Authority, Bangalore, negatived the objection. It
may be mentioned that the ground upon which the Appellate Tribunal
dismissed the appeal against the order of renewal pas~ed by the Regional
Transport Authority was that in some other cases the Mysore Revenue
Appellate Tribunal had held that the integrity of a scheme is not
impaired if the distance of the overlapping portion is aboJ.!.t five miles
and if a condition not to pick up or set down passengers on the notified
route is attached. On this reasoning the Tribunal thought there were
no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appellant then
filed a writ petition in what is now the Karnataka High Court, but it
is was dismissed by a Division Bench in limine. This appeal is by
special leave against that dismissal order.
It appears that the passenger transport services on the routes
appearing at Serial Nos. 1 to 22, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 53 of the statement
appended to the scheme approved under s. 68D(2) of the Act, subject to
th~ modifications set out in the notification dated June 7, 1960, included
"services between any two places therein" and the transport services
were 'to be run and operated by the State Transport undertaking to
the complete exclusion of other operators." The notification then sets
out the various details of the said approved scheme known as the Banga-
]ore Scheme. The question at issue is whether the scheme prohibits over·
lapping of the route or routes of private operators on a part or whole
of the notified route. If the route or routes overlap as aforesaid, then
no permit can be granted to those private operators over the notified
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[197 S] 1 S.C.R.
routes which prohibit them to operate over those routes. This proposition was laid down is several decisions of this Court to which refer.ence will be made hereafter.
Ina recent judgment of this Court by one of us (Beg, J., and Chandrach-ud, J., concurring with him in Mysore State Road Transport Corpoft~tion v. The Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal & Ors,(l) this Court
~s taken a contrary viow. No douit this case was one rendered in
l'espect of inter-State routes, while the instant case is one relating to
intra-State routes. There, however seems to be no difference in the
principal applicable to both the cases. The principle governing
i.Dtra-State routes has been extended to inter-State routes vide S.
Abdul Khader Saheb v. The Mysore Revenue
Appellate
Tribunt~l,
B•ngalore Ors.(2) As the recent decision to which reference has been
made seems to take a contrary view to that taken by even larger Bencbes of this Court; we find it necessary to re-examine the question
posed before us.
Un6ler s. 68C of the Act where a State Transport Undertaking is
of opinion that for the purposes of providing an efficient, adequate,
economical and properly coordinated road transport service, it is
necessary in the public interest that road transport services in general
OJ' any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route
OJ' portion thereof should be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partiaJ,
of other persons or otherwise, the 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 etc.
The scheme so framed has to be published under s. 68D, objections
called for and the scheme as finally approved has to be published
under s. 68F with or without modifications including any prohibitions.
on the area or route or parts of an area or a route covered by the
notified scheme. There is now no doubt that any route or area either
wholly or partly can be taken over by a State Undertaking under
any scheme published, approved and notified under the provisions
ofCh. IV-A of the Act inserted by s. 62 of Act 100 of 1956. The provisions of this Chapter confer a monopoly on the State in respect of
transport services to the partial or complete exclusion of other per.
sons. In Y. J. Kondala Rao and others v. Andhra Pradesh State Rolld
,Transport Corporation and others,(Y) a Constitution Bench of this Court
held that Ch. IV-A of the Act in specific terms provides a complete
and in the circumstances, a satisfactory machinery for reasonably
regulating the exclusion of all or some of the private operators from
the notified area or route. Subba Rao, J., as he then was, speaking
for the Court pointed out that in Saghir Ahmed v. State of U.P.(4)
tbc constitutional validity of s. 42(3) of the Act was questioned. What
&lghir Ahmed's case(4) decided was that the public were entitled to
uMJ public streets and roads which vest in the State as a matter of
(l) C. A3. Nos. 1755-1756 of 1968 etc. decided on 17-5-1974.
(2) [1973) 2 S.C.R. 925.
(3) A.I.R. [1961} S.C. 82.
(4) [1973] 2 S.C.R. 925.
B
c
D
F
G
H
n
c
MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. ·V. APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL (Jaganmo!UJJt Reddy, J.)
619
right. The State _as. a ~rustce on behalf of the public was entitled to
impose all such.l~mttatJOns on ~he character and extent of the user
as m~Y be r~q~tstt~ for protectmg the rights. of the. public generally.
Withlfi the hmtts 1mpos~d by State _RegulatiOns any member of the
public can ply mot<_>r vehtcles on publ!c roads and to that extent he can
also carrY o~ b~smess of transpo_rttng p~ssengers with the aid of
vehicle. As mfnngement o_f t~e ng~t whtch was challenged in that
case arose b~fo_re _ thc ConstttutiOn (Fm~ AJ?cndment) Act, 1951, the
impugned re~tr!ctlOn ~as held not to be JU~llfit:d as a reasonable restri.
ction imposed tn the Interests of th~ general public. As a result of the
constitution (First Amcndmcnt) Act, 1951, Art. 19(6) enables the
State to carry on any trade or busin~ss eith.:r by itself, or by a corporation owned or controllcd by the State, tl' the exclusion crmplcte
or partial, of citiz.:ns or otherwise. Sagfl ·,Ahmed's case(szpra) would
have no application to schemes notifi.:d under Ch. IV-A of the Act
because what has now to be s..:..:n is whether under that scheme private
operators are permitted to ply vehidcs on the notified route or routes
with or without restrictions, or totally prohibit~d from using those
routes. Whether a route is inter-State rout!! or intra-State route, the
poy;er to exclude is conferred by Ch. IV-A.
D
In Y. J. Kanda 'a Rao's case(supra) the question was whether the word
"route" in s. 68C ref..:rs to a pre-existing route. It was contended
that the words 'route or portion thereof' in the section clearly indicatts that the route is an existing route because a scheme ~annot be
framed in respect of a portion of the prop<'sed route. This contention was negatived. The Court observed at p. 93 :
.E
"We do not sec any force in this contention. Under s. 68C
of the Act the scheme may be framed in respect of any area ~r
route or a portion of any area or a porti<'n of a route. There ts
· 1
·
be
..
a" and a "route"
no m tcrcnt inconsiStency
tween. a!l are
·
The proposcd route is also an area limited to the route propos:d.
The scheme may as well propose to operate a transport servtce
in respect of a new route from point A to poin~ B and th<>t
F
route would certainly be an area within the mcarung of s. ~8C.
We, therefore, hold that s. 68C certainly empow~rs thd
~~~
Transport Undertaking to propose a scheme to mclu e n
routes" •
. In tho case of Abdu' GcJjoor v. Stott of .Mysore,(!) a~o~hcra ~;:C~~
tutJOn Bench of this Court consiJen:d the effect c>f nottfyu~~ d nder
C
~~d it was stated thc:ro that whe~ a _scheme hadd bcf~~ ~; g~an~ l'f a
· l_V-A of the Act and an nprhcnuon was ma ea rivate operator,
~m1t on a rout~ notified undc:r the scheme ~y bp t to refuse the
t
~egionul Transport Authority bad no opttC'n li~ation presented
~rmtt to the private operator an~ to grant the ftPP It has no right to
~k the State Transport Undertalong for a. ~rm Permit-holders cf the
11
tr
for assis~nce from the p~blic or ClU~~~n1n general n<'r th~ per-
. rni~hPort servtce holdc:rs.
Netthe~ the pu ~c
The only duty 1t has
__:, olders have any part to play 1n the mat er.
(I) {19SSJ 1 S.C.R. 707.
i
l
I
I
f '
\.
I
' i I
620
SUPRE¥E COURT REPORTS .
[1975] 1 6.C.R.
to do. is to examine the application and to see whether it is in pursuance of an approved scheme and secondly whether it has been made
in the manner laid down in Ch.-lV-A. If, therefore, the scheme prohibits private transport owners to operate on the notified area or route
or any portion thereof, the Regional Transport Authority cannot either
renew the permit of such private owners or give any fresh permit in
respect of a route which overlaps the notified route. The question is
whether the scheme read as a whole prohibits the private owners from
operating on any of the notified routes.
In Ni!kanth Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar (1) the appellants
contended that as the notified route formed part of a larger route operated by the private operator, the two routes must be regarded as diffeA
B
rent routes, and the private operator could not be prevented from: c
running his onnibuses on that portion of his W:!te, which was a diffrent route, although notified. This Court (Gajendragadkar and Hidayatullah, JJ.,) held that the appellants were not entitled to run over
those portions of their routes·which were notified as part of the scheme.
Those portions could not be said to be different routes but must he
regarded as portions of the routes of the private operators, from which
the private operators stood excluded under s. 68F(2) (c) (iii) of the Act.
D
It was observed in that case that as the State Transport Undertaking had
already been granted permits over the route "AB", the private operators i.e. the appellants were not entitled in law to renewal of their permits
for routes which embraced also route 'AB'. In such circumstances,
the Regional Transport Authority could not, but refuse to renew their
permits. It was, therefore, incom~etent to renew a permit over a
route embracing route 'AB'. Reliance seems to have been placed upon
E
a decisi0n of the Privy Council in Ke ·ani Va''ey Motor Transit Co.
Ltd. v. Colombo-Ratnapura Omnibus Co. Ltd.(2). That decision is
hardly of any relevance to the question at issue here. In that case
both the appellant and the respondent were applicants for exclusive
road service licence for the route from Colombo to Ratnapura. There
was another route from Panadura to BadL 11 t through Colombo and
Ratnapura. The decision in that case depended upon the words of
F
the Ordinance 'such route or on a route substantially the same
as such route". As pointed out by the Privy Council :
"It appears that Panadura is some six.teen miles along the
coast to Colombo, thence from Colombo to Ratnapura is some
fifty miles and from Ratnapura to Badulla is a further eighty
miles. It is obvious, therefore th1t the route Panadura to
B1.dulla is not the same or substantially the same route as the
route Colombo to Ratnapura."
On the above fact situation. Sir John Beaumount giving the opinion
of the BJard obiierved :
G
•'If "route" has the same meaning as "highway" in the
Ordin:mce this argument must prevail since admittedly an
H
Omnibus running on the highway f1=om Panadura to Badulla
{1) {1962] Supp. (1) s.c.R. 728.
(2) [1946] A.C. 338.
B
•
c
D
E
F
G
H
MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. V. APPELLATE
62 1
TRIBUNAL (Jaganmoltarlt Reddy, ],)
will pass over the whole of the highway between Colombo and
Ratnapura, but in their Lordships' opinion it is impossible
to say that "route" and "highway" in the two Ordinances are
synonymous terms. In both Ordinances, ...... thf" two words
are used, and certainly not inter.changeably. A "highway',
is the physical track along which an omnibus runs, whilst a
"route" appears to their Lordships to be an abstract conception
of line of travel between one te>rminus and another, and to be
something distinct from the highway traversed ...... there may
. be alternative roads leading from one terminus to another but
that does not make the route and highway the same."
The question that arises in this case~ whether when one party has
a monopoly over a route a licence can be granted to any other party
over any part of that route, did not arise for cQnsideration there and
in considering that question the distinction between "route" and
"highway" is not at all relevant.
In Ni.'kantl1 Prasad's case(supra) the distinction between "route" and
"road" was relied upon by the appellants to show that the notified
route "AB" was a different route from the routes for which renewal
of permits was demanded, even though route "AB" might have been
a portion of the "road" traversed by the omnibus of the appellants
plying on their "routes''. Hidayatullah, J., observed at P. 736 :
"The distinction made by t}'le Privy Council is right ;
but
it was made with reference to the words used in the Ordinances
there under consideration. The question is whether a similar
distinction can be made in the context of the Motor Vehicles
Act."
It seems to have been argued before the Court that the word "route"
had been used in contradistinction with the word •'area" and hence
wherever the word "route" was used it was used in the sense of a nationalJine between two termini running a stated course, and was used in
contradistinction to what may be conveyed by the word ''area". As
we· have seen in Kondala Rao' s case, (supra) this argument was negatived
and so the Bench in Ni kanth Prasad's case(supra) f >llowing that deci'>ion
negatived it. To our mind the decision in Kelani Valley Motor Transit Co. Ltd's case( supra) lends no assistance to the basic concept of a
"route'', a line of travel between two points, which can be traversed
by different roads as was pointed out in that decision itself. A route
between Delhi to Bombay can be traversed via Agra, Gwalior, Indore,
etc. or by some other road say via Nagpur, but whete the road of the
route is specified in scheme, and private operators are prohibited to
traverse on that route between the two termini, any overlapping of that
route would transgress the provisions of the nr·tified route and t4e.
Regional Transport Authority cannot but reject an application for
a ~rmit to traverse that overlapping. Under the Ordinance which
the Privy Council was considering in Kelani Valley Motor Transit Co.
l..,td's case(supra) a preference was to be given to an application from (a)
company or partnership comnrising the holders of all the licences for
the time being in force and (b) a company or partnership comprising
622'
SuPllEME COURT lEPOP.TS
[1975] 1 S.C.R.
tho holders of the majority of the licences referred to in (a) above,
authorising the use of omnibuses on such routes which established the
1ugest number of permits over the route. It is in that connection that
the word "route., was considered.
In any case under s. 2(28A) inserted by s. 2 of Act 56 of 1969 tho
word' 'route" has been defined as meaning "a line of travel which specifics the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between
•~ terminus and another". This definition correlates the notional
tine of travel between two termini with the portion of the highway
1thich has to be traversed on that route. It is, therefore, apparent that
where a private transport owner makes an application to operate
OD a route, which overlaps even a portion of the notified rou1e
i.e. where tho part of the highway to be used by the pdvatc
transport owner traverses on a line on the same highway on the notiiod route, then that application has to be considered only in the lipt
of the scheme as notified. If anyconditions are placed then thoM~
qonditions have to be fulfilled and if there is a total prohibition then dre
application must be rejected.
In C.P.C. Motor Service, Mysore v. The State of Mysore mul
Another (1) the prohibition was only against the private owners
operating on the routes which lay within the District. In these circumstances this Court held that the exclusive operation of the routes within
t:be District meant that no other omnibus belonging to a private cperator couJd run on that sector. The direction. therefore, clt:arly said that
the route left to the private operators would be open to them beycnd
tbe border of the District. but they were excluded from that portion
of the route which lay within the District. again Bidayatullah, J.,
who delivered the judgment of the Court observed at p. 726. :
"The scheme of the Act in s. 68F(2)(c)(iii) also shows
that the Regional Transport Authority, in giving effect to the
approved scheme, may "curtaiJ the area or route covered by the
permit in so far as such permit relates to the notified area or
notified route". This makes the route or area stand for the
road on which the omnibuses run or porticns therecf, and in
view of the fact that the scheme reserved all the
routes
within the Mysore District to the State Transport Under
taking, even those routes which were inter-District cpen to the
private operators would stand pretanto 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 Mysore District and the nctificaticn cfa different route, in which the portion within the Mysore District is also included"
This view also has been subsequently taken in Slzri Roshonlal GauttJ.m
v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others.(2)
This Court has consistently taken the view that if there is prohibi-
. t1<>n to operate on a notified route or routes no licences can be granted
(1) {1962] Supp, {t) S.C.R. 717.
(2) [196.f} 1 S.C.R. 841.
A
•
B
c
D
E
t
F
G
H
A
B
c
E
F
G
H
MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. V. APPELLATE
tl23TRIBUNAL (/ag<mmohan Reddy, /,)
to any private operator whose route traversed or overlapped any Jlart
()f whole of that notified route. The intersection of the notifitd r()ute
may not, in our view, amount to traversing or overlappin~ the 1oute
because the prohibition imposed applles to a whole or a rart cf the
toute on the highway on the same line of the route. An intersection
cannot be said to be traversing the same line, as it cuts across it.
In the recent case Mysore State Road Transport 'Corporation v.
The Mysore Re~·enue Appellate T•ibunal, (supra)the view taken was that
'Wbere two routes-(1) the route plied over by private operators and (2)
tlle route notified do not coincide at the points of termini it may Jwt
be enough to exclude the private inter·State owners by any necesEary
jmplication, and that if the intention is to exclude such useJ of opera-
·tion that intention must be made clear in order to have that effect~
Uree schemes \vere considered in that case (1) the Anakal Scheme i (2}
t'-c Gulbarga Scheme and (3) the Bangalore Scheme and even though it
was admitted that with regard to the Ban~alcre Scheme the, caEe d the
appellant Corporation was better inasmuch as the words used there are
1'tbe complete exclusion of all other operators excluding the intermemate routes", nonetheless it was observed that the exclusion appears to
~ only of operators providing services between the termini mc,nti<:ned
there and not merely using overlapping portions of the notified routes.
illCidentally, and that~ if the exclusion of those using over lapping
portions of the surface of the highway common to two different
IOUtes was also really intended, they shculd have been named in too
appended statement and the number of their stage carria,g(.S shculd
bave been given. As no explanation was forthcoming for this omission ..
the interpretation of the three schemes advanced en behalf cf the inter
State operators was considered to be more reasonable. 1he judpncni
further observed :
"Whatever may be said about the correctness of the
decision of this Court in Nilkanth Prasads' case (supra) in·
the context of the scheme before this Court for considetaticn
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 scheme before us for inter·
pretation we find tb.at only operators named therein or those v.ho
seek to provide "services" upon the routes mentioned in the scbe-
:mes, in the sense that they carry passengers travelling frcm one
place to another situated only upon tbe notified routes, .ccu1d
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 inter·
State operators to bring out what it understood the scheme to
mean in each case".
With respect we do not doubt the correctness of the decision
i:nNillcanthPrasad's case (supra) which followed the decisions of different
Constitution Benches of this Court. Even if that decision has to
be
dissented from, it
could only be done by a larger Bench of
tbi11 Court. On the other hand if at all the definition of the word
"route" ins. 2(28A) lends further support to the principle fnunciatut
-624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 1 S.C.R.
in Nilkanth Prasad's case (supra) The scheme betore us clearly notified
tne
routes at Serial Nos. 1 to
22, 24, 25, 26,27 and 53 including
services between the two places therein were to be operated by the State
Transport Undertaking to the complete exclusion of all other opera~
tors. In other words, the State Transport Undertaking has been given
exclusive right to run on those routes or any two places between those
routes or between any two places on those routes. The routes specified
in the statement show routes Nos. II and 12 between Chitradurga to
Hiiiyur l'ia Iymangala and Chitradurga to Hiriyur via Mardihalli.
·
The proceedings before the Regional Transport Authority of March
25, 1968 in respect of the application of Mjs C. Abdul Rahim & Sons
for renewal of their permit were considered as additional Item No.23.
C. Abdul Rahim & Sons had been granted permit No. 176}58-59
and that permit was being evidently renewed from time to time on the·
route Hiriyur to Chiradurga and back via V.V. Sagar, Hosadurga
and Janakal. The last application for renewal which gave ri~e to the
present controversy was evidently ma~e on October J, 1967 for renewing it for a period of five years. Th1s was published on January 11,
1968 and before the Regional Transport Authority C. Abdul Rahim &
Sons asked for renewal of their permit as applied for by them in the
interest of the travelling public. But the Mysore State Road Transport
Corporation objected on the ground that its services will be affected
ifthe·grant is renewed. That objection was overruled and the permit
was directed to be renewed for a period of three years from the
date of the expiry of the permit.
A revision petition was filed by Mysore State Road Transport Cor-·
poration before the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal on the
ground that the renewal of the permit was bad as the route proposed
for
rerr~wal overlapped the notified route Hiriyur to V. V. Sagar
over a distance of three miles coming under the Bangalore Scheme.
This contention was rejected on the ground that in B. Munivenkataswamy Naidu's ca~e (Civil Appeal No. 3203 of 1966 etc.) the Mysore
Revenue Appellate Tribunal had held "that the integrity of a scheme
is not impaired if the distance of the overlapping portion is about fh·e
miles and if a condition not to pick up or set down passengers on the
notified route is attached."
'
Throughout these proceedings it was no where contested that the
route granted to M/s. C. Abdul Rahim & Sons does not overlap the
notified route. If that was the case, this question would not have
arisen. On the other hand, because the route granted to C. Abdul
Rahim & Sons overlapped three miles over the notified route and since
the Tribunal had held earlier that any overlapping within five miles
.does not impair the integrity of the scheme, the validity of this view
is being agitated before us. The High Court dismiEsed the writ petition in limine, notwithstanding the contention urged in tr1e writ petition by the appellant that both the Full Bench as well as Division
Bench of the Court had held that the nationalised routes are to be operated by the State Transport-Undertaking to the complete exclusion of
all other operators, if such a scheme excluded private operators front·
op~rating on them.
A
B
c
;..
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. V. APPELLATE
6Z5;
TRIBUNAL (Jagannwfwn, Reddy, J.)
A similar question has been dealt with by this Court in the Mysore ·
State Road Transport Corporation's case(supra)to whi.ch we have referred
earlier.
In that case, the facts have not been stated and we are not
in a position to know which of the permits in
ca~es befc.1e the Court
had expired and which of them were renewed during the pender..cy cf'
the hearing.
If the years in which those appeals were filed ·are taken,
as a guide, the permits in all those appeals whether renewed fer three
years of five years would have expired before the decision was rn:dued.
But that was not the reason
given for dismissing those appfals. If·
this reason is valid, then what was decided in
that case would not be
the ratio of that case. At any rate, the decision in that case would
suffer from the same infirmity which a decision in this case may be consi--
dered to suffer. But that is not how the decision in that case proceeded.
On the other hand, it was assumed in all those case that the appellant
was contending that the permits granted were illegal bt:cause those routes
overlapped the nationalised notified routes. The fact that permits had~
expired did not preclude this Court frcm expounding the
law on
the basis that those permits were current. Where a permit has been
granted against the objection of the State Transport Undertaking <1nd
the matter is agitated before this Court, there being no stay, it is diffi-·
cult to postulate that even after the expiry of those permits they are not
renewed. In this very case, it can be observt:d that the permit is being
renewed in favour of C. Abdul Rahim & Sons after I he expiry of each
of the periods from 1958 onwards. In any case, it is impermissible
for vs suo motlt to look into the interstices oft he case or to raise objections,
on assumptions which may or may not be correct.
'I he
respon- ·
dents' non-appearance after due notice cannot
preclude this Court
from proceeding on admitted facts.
At · any rate, no
objection
of any kind which might preclude determimticn of this qucstic n has
been put to the appellant's counsel and it would be unfair if we were to
deal with them as if it is admitted. In any case, if the permits which.
h;we expired have been renewed, which we have no doubt must have
been, then we can mould our relief to suit that changed situaticn. St:e.
Mohanlal Clzunilai Kothari v. Tribltovan Hariblrai Tamboli (1).
The "Bangalore Scheme" has been
the subject matter cf the·
Mysore State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra) as also other cases ...
Even the special leave petition has set it out. Since the decison which
has been challenged proceeds on the basis that Hiriyur to V. V. Sagar
route granted to C. Abdul Rahim & Sons overlaps the notified route
Chitradurga to Hiriyur, there can no doubt that no permit or renewal·
can be granted. This is so even if
it
overlaps
over
however·
short the distance of the route. Whether a particular route granted
to a private operator overlaps the notified route or not cannot be ascer--
tained from the notified route. The notified route may merely state
the route to he operated by the State Transport Undertaking and the
total of partial prohibition on other operators frcm operating on
that
route or a
portion
thereof. Where,
however
other
operators
are
permitted
to
operate
on
any
portion
of that route, it may also provide the tetms and conditicns
ur.der;·
(1) [1963] 2 S.C.R. 707.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 1 S.C.I!..
which they can be permitted Beyond this, from the notified scheme
it cannot be ascertained whether any particular permit overlaps the
notified route or transgresses any of the conditions or prohibitions
"
set out therein. There is no justification for holding that the intergrity
ofthe notified
scheme is not affected if the overlapping is under five
miles or because a condition has been stipulated in the permit that the
operators wilJ not pick up or set down any passengers on the overlapped
a
route
On this view, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High
Court, and direct the Regional Transport a Authori~y to ccmply with
the require~ents of the scheme as stated by us in respect of any permit
granted or m respect of renewal of any such permit made in favour
of the third respondent during the pendency of this appeal
Boo, J -The appellant, the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, had filed a writ Petition-cum-affidavit in the Mysore High Court
in 1968 It reads :
"I, B. P.