Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
1. C. S. Rowjee represented by Power of Attorney holder Sri C. Apparao Rowjee, and others (In C. A. No. 770 of 1963)
2. M. Gangappa and others (In C. A. No. 771 of 1963)
3. The Estate of Late K. Veeraswamy and Sons represented by the Receiver K. Satyanarayana and others (In C. A. No. 772 of 1963)
4. M. Gangappa (In C. A. No. 773 of 1963)
5. C. S. Raojee, represented by Power of Attorney holder Sri C. Apparao Raojee and others (In C. A. No. 774 of 1963)
6. M. Gangappa and others (In C. A. No. 775 of 1963)
7. P. Rajasekhara Reddy (minor) by mother and guardian P. Ramalakshmamma (In C. A. No. 776 of 1963)
8. K. Mahanadireddy and others (In C. A. No. 777 of 1963)
9 P. Nagamma (In C. A. No. 778 of 1963)
10. G. M. S. Motor Service, represented by its proprietor Z. J. Abdul Vadood Saheb (In C. A. No. 883 of 1963)
11. Chittor Motor Transport Service, Chittor by its Managing Partner, C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar (In C. A. No. 884 of 1963), Appellants
Versus
The State of A.P. and others (In all the appeals). Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 770 to 778 and 883 and 884 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, (M/s. P. Babula Reddy and K. R. Chaudhuri, Advocates, with him), for Appellants (In C. A. No. 770 of 1963) M/s. P. Babula Reddi and K. R. Chaudhuri, Advocates, for Appellants (In C. A. Nos. 771 to 777 of 1963); Mr. K. R. Chaudhuri Advocate, for Appellants (In C. A. No. 778 of 1963) M/s. K. Srinivasa Murthy and K. R. Chaudhuri, Advocate, for Appellants (In C. A. Nos. 883 and 884 of 1963) Mr. D. Narasaraju, Advocate-General for the State of Andhra Pradesh, (M/s. P. R. Ramachandra Rao and B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocate with him.), for Respondents (In all the Appeals).
The impugned Schemes were published by Government as G. O. Ms: 292, 293 and 294 of the Home, Transport Department on February 5, 1 in virtue of the powers conferred on Government by sub-s. (2) of S. 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation which, for shortness, we shall refer to as the Corporation, besides the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Regional Transport Authority Kurnool were impleaded as respondents to the petitions. They are also the respondents before us. By reason of the first Scheme, 34 routes were intended to be taken over, while under the 2nd and 3rd, 17 and 13 routes respectively were proposed to be nationalised. The routes covered by these three Schemes are all in the western half of the Kurnool District.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants before us are the previously existing Motor Transport Operators whose permits are liable to be modified or cancelled under the provisions of the Schemes on their coming into force. The impugned Schemes were published by Government as G. O. Ms: 292, 293 and 294 of the Home, Transport Department on February 5, 1 in virtue of the powers conferred on Government by sub-s. (2) of S. 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation which, for shortness, we shall refer to as the Corporation, besides the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Regional Transport Authority Kurnool were impleaded as respondents to the petitions. They are also the respondents before us. By reason of the first Scheme, 34 routes were intended to be taken over, while under the 2nd and 3rd, 17 and 13 routes respectively were proposed to be nationalised. The routes covered by these three Schemes are all in the western half of the Kurnool District.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned schemes are vitiated by the fact that they were not in conformity with the requirements of S. 68-C of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Schemes did not in reality reflect the opinion of the Corporation that it was necessary in the public interest that the Road Transport Services in the area or over the route, specified in the Schemes, should be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking as is required by S. 68-C but that the Schemes owed their origin to the direction of the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh who acted mala fide in directing the Transport Undertaking to frame the impugned Schemes for the areas for which they were purported to be framed; 2. Whether the decision by the Transport Minister overruling the objections raised by the several road transport operators to the Schemes was also mala fide, in that he too acted in pursuance of the mala fide intentions of the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh; 3. Whether the provisions of the Schemes (and this applied both to the draft Schemes published by the Corporation as well as the approved Schemes published under S. 68-D (3)) did not conform to the statutory requirements of S. 68-C and rule 4 of the Rules regarding the particulars to be embodied in the Schemes and that in consequence the core of the Scheme was in violation of S. 68-D of the Act; 4. Whether the Schemes comprised not merely inter-state routes but also included interstate transport routes and in the latter case the procedure prescribed by the proviso to S. 68-D was not followed and hence all the impugned Schemes which are integrated ones are had and require to be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned schemes are vitiated by the fact that they were not in conformity with the requirements of S. 68-C of the Act.
Final Decision: Appeals allowed.
Judgment
AYYANGAR, J. : This batch of 11 Appeals which have been consolidated for hearing are directed against the common judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and are before us on the grant of a certificate of fitness under Art. 133(1) of the Constitution by the said High Court.
2. The proceedings concerned in the appeals arise out of Writ petitions filed before the High Court by the several appellants before us under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of three Schemes framed under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, nationalising Motor Transport in certain areas in the Kurnool District of the State of Andhra Pradesh which for convenience we shall refer to as the impugned Schemes. The appellants who impugn the validity of the Schemes are the previously existing Motor Transport Operators whose permits are liable to be modified or cancelled under the provisions of the Schemes on their coming into force. The impugned Schemes were published by Government as G. O. Ms: 292, 293 and 294 of the Home, Transport Department on February 5, 1 in virtue of the powers conferred on Government by sub-s. (2) of S. 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation which, for shortness, we shall refer to as the Corporation, besides the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Regional Transport Authority Kurnool were impleaded as respondents to the petitions. They are also the respondents before us. By reason of the first Scheme, 34 routes were intended to be taken over, while under the 2nd and 3rd, 17 and 13 routes respectively were proposed to be nationalised. The routes covered by these three Schemes are all in the western half of the Kurnool District.
3. Before adverting to the points requiring consideration in the appeals, it would be convenient to set out the relevant statutory provisions relating to the nationalisation of Road Transport for it is primarily on their construction that the decision of the appeals would turn.
4. Chapter IV-A containing special provisions relating to State Transport Undertakings was introduced into the Motor Vehicles Act (Act IV of 1939) by an amendment effected by Central Act I of 1956 which came into effect on 16-2-1957. The Chapter consists of sections numbered 68-A to 68-I. S. 68-A contains definitions and of these it is sufficient to refer to the definition of "State Transport Undertaking which includes inter alia any undertaking providing road transport service, where such undertaking is carried on by .... " "any Road Transport Corporation established under S. 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act 1950. (to refer to the portion which is material.)
(It might be mentioned that the Corporation, the first respondents before us is a body established under this enactment.)
5-6. Section 68-B reads:-
"The provisions of this Chapter and the rules and orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter IV of this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.
The next Section 68-C which is the one most involved in the appeals runs :
"Where any State Transport Undertaking is of opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise, 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 and such other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed, and shall cause every such scheme to be published in the Official Gazette and also in such other manner as the State Govt. may direct.
The fir
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
