1. Challenge to the setting aside of stage carriage permit renewals on routes notified under a scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 383
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
1st December, 1961
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.
(1) Nilkanth Prasad (In C. A. No. 534 of 61) (2) Rai Jai Krishna and others (In C. A. No. 535 of 61), (3) Debi Singh (In C. A. No. 536 of 61), (4) Tansukh Rai Jain and another (In C. A. No. 537 of 61), (5) Ram Sanehi Singh (In C. A. No. 538 of 61) and (6) Nawalkishore Lal (In C. A. No. 539 of 61) Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar and others (In all the Appeals) Respondents with M/s. Road Transport Co., Dhanbad (In C. A. No. 434 of 61) Appellant
Versus
The Secretary, Chhotanagpur Regional Transport Authority, Ranchi and others (In C. A. No. 434 of 61) Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 534 to 539 of 1961, with Civil Appeal No. 434 of 1961.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (Mr. B. P. Jha, Advocate, with him) for Appellants (In C. As Nos. 534 to 538 and 434 of 61); Mr. B. P. Jha, Advocate, for Appellant (In C. A. No. 539 of 61); Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, Government Advocate for State of Bihar (M/s. L. S. Sinha and S. P. Varma, Advocates, with him), for Respondents (In all the Appeals).
Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.P.JHA, L.S.SINHA, LAL NARAIN SINHA, S.P.Varma
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.P.JHA, L.S.SINHA, LAL NARAIN SINHA, S.P.Varma
Under the Motor Vehicles Act, a notified route that is part of a larger route operated by a private operator is not a 'different route.' Private operators must be excluded from such notified portions to give effect to State Transport Undertaking schemes.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 58(2), 64A, 68C, 68D, 68F(2)(c)(iii) - Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 - Section 3 - Notified scheme for transport services - Exclusive rights of State Transport Undertaking - Renewal of permits for private operators - Overlapping routes - Power of revision - When a scheme has been notified under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Regional Transport Authority is required to refuse permits to private operators if the State Transport Undertaking has been granted exclusive rights on that route (Para 6) - The State Transport Authority, exercising powers under Section 64A, is entitled to revise an improper or illegal order of the Regional Transport Authority even if the appeal bringing the matter before it was technically incompetent (Para 6).
(B) Interpretation of 'Route' and 'Road' - Distinction between 'route' as a notional line between two termini and 'road' as a physical track - In the context of Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, this distinction is irrelevant - A notified route that forms part of a larger route operated by a private operator is not a 'different route' but a portion of the route from which the private operator is excluded under Section 68F(2)(c)(iii) (Para 8) - The legislative intention is to exclude private operators completely from running over certain sectors or routes vested in State Transport Undertakings (Para 8).
Facts of the case:
Private operators held stage carriage permits for routes that overlapped with a specific route notified under a government scheme as being exclusively for a State Transport Undertaking. The Regional Transport Authority renewed the permits of the private operators, reasoning that the notified route was different from the routes for which renewal was sought. This decision was set aside by the Appeal Board and subsequently upheld by the High Court. The private operators challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the notified route was a distinct entity from their larger routes.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Regional Transport Authority was incompetent to renew permits over a route that embraced a notified route. It further held that the Appeal Board was justified in revising the order under its revisionary powers under Section 64A, regardless of the technical competency of the appeals. On the merits, the court found that the private operators were disentitled to run over portions of their routes that were notified as part of the state scheme.
Issues: Whether a notified route that is a portion of a larger route operated by a private operator should be regarded as a different route, and whether the private operator can be excluded from that specific portion under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 68C and 68F(2)(c)(iii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a scheme may notify a portion of a route, and the authority may curtail existing permits to exclude such notified portions. The distinction between 'route' as a notional line and 'road' as a physical track does not apply to Chapter IVA because curtailing a route necessarily involves curtailing a portion of the road. The intent of the Act is to ensure State Transport Undertakings have exclusive rights over notified sectors.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Competency of appeals by a successor corporation and whether a notified route forming part of a larger route constitutes a distinct route. (Para 3 )
3. RTA must mechanically refuse permits violating notified schemes; the distinction between route and road is irrelevant for curtailment under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 6 , 8 )
4. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, a notified route or portion thereof excludes private operators, regardless of whether it forms part of a larger route. (Para 8 )
5. Appeals dismissed. (Para 10 )
6. Can the Appeal Board revise an order of the Regional Transport Authority even if the appeal is incompetent?
Yes, under Section 64A, the State Transport Authority possesses vast powers of revision to call for the record of any case and pass appropriate orders if the original order is improper or illegal. (Para 6 )
7. What is the duty of the Regional Transport Authority when a permit is sought for a route notified under a scheme?
The duty is mechanical; the Authority must take note of notified routes and refuse permits to private operators if the State Transport Undertaking has already been granted a permit for that route. (Para 6 )
8. Does the distinction between a notional route and a physical road apply to the curtailment of permits under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act?
No, the distinction disappears because curtailing a route necessarily involves curtailing the physical road; the legislative intention is to exclude private operators completely from sectors vested in State Transport Undertakings. (Para 8 )
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH, J. : The judgment in Civil Appeal No. 534 of 1961 will dispose of Civil Appeals Nos. 535 to 539 of 1961. In these appeals, private operators of omnibuses challenge the orders of the Appeal Board of the State Transport Authority, by which it set aside the renewal of the permits on certain routes granted by the South Bihar Regional Transport Authority, Patna. The appellants held previously stage carriage permits over certain routes, which were due to expire in December, 1958 or in January, 1959. They had applied for renewal of their permits under S. 58 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Under a scheme framed and notified on July 8, 1957, vide Notification No. P-2-203/57T/4794, the route, Gaya to Khijirsarai, was notified under S. 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Rajya Transport, Bihar, was exclusively allowed to operate on that route. In Civil Appeals Nos. 535 to 538 of 1961, the Rajya Transport, Bihar, filed objections against the renewal of the permits. In Civil Appeals Nos. 534 and 539 of 1961, no objections were filed. The route, Gaya to Khijirsarai, which may be called conveniently route AB formed part of routes, on which the appellants were operating, and in respect of which they had asked for renewal of their permits. The South Bihar Regional Transport Authority, however, renewed the permits of the appellants, holding that route AB was different from the routes, for which renewal was demanded.
2. Against the orders of the Regional Transport Authority, appeals were filed by the Rajya Transport, Bihar in all the cases, that is to say, in those cases in which the Rajya Transport, Bihar, had objected, and those in which it had not objected. While these appeals were pending, the State of Bihar, acting under S. 3 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (64 of 1950) notified on April 20, 1959 as follows :
"No. R. T. Cor. 1/59-3090 - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (LXIV of 1950), the Governor of Bihar is pleased to establish with effect from the 1st May, 1959 a Road Transport Corporation, for the State of Bihar, to be called the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation.
2. The said Corporation shall with effect from the said date, exercise all the powers and perform all the functions which are at present being exercised and performed by the Rajya Transport, Bihar.
By order of the Governor of Bihar.
K. B. Sharma, Dy. Secy."
3. At the hearing of the appeals, the Government Advocate, Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, appeared for the Road Transport Corporation. Objection was taken to the competency of the appeals on two grounds. In those cases in which the Rajya Transport, Bihar, had not objected to the renewal of the permits before the Regional Transport Authority, it was contended that it had no locus standi to file appeals. In those cases in which it had so objected, the ground was that the Road Transport Corporation could not, in law, represent ,the Rajya Transport, Bihar, in the appeals filed by the latter. On merits, it was contended that the order of the Regional Transport Authority that route AB , though part of the routes for which renewal was asked, was a different route, and the State corporation had an exclusive right to ply omnibuses on route AB , did not affect the rights of the appellants to ply their omnibuses on routes, which were entirely different.
4. The Government Advocate contended that, on the analogy of the principle underlying O. 22, R. 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Road Transport Corporation on which devolved the powers and functions of the Rajya Transport, Bihar, could prosecute the appeals. He also contended, in the alternative, that he was representing also the Rajya Transport, Bihar, and that the appeals were not defective. The Board accepted the argument of the Government Advocate, and set aside the orders of renewal passed by the Regional Transport Authority. The appellants then filed petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Con
