1. Nationalisation scheme under Section 68-C, Motor Vehicles Act, curtailing private contract carriage permits by excluding specific routes from a permitted area. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 268
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
26th October 1964.
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Roshan Lal Gautham, Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Ram Babu Bansal, Intervener.
Civil Appeal No. 800 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate (M/s. B. L. Singhal and B. P. Maheshwari Advocate, with him) for Appellant; Mr. C. B. Agarwala, Senior Advocate, (M/s. K. N. Singh and O. P. Rana Advocate, with him), for Respondents; M/s. G. S. Pathak and A. V. Viswanath Sastri, Senior Advocates (M/s. B. L. Singhal and B. P. Maheshwari, Advocates with him), for Intervener.
A contract carriage permit granted for an area can be legally curtailed by a nationalisation scheme excluding specific routes, as the power to limit permits to routes under Section 51(2)(i) and modify them under Section 68-F of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, permits such curtailment.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 2(3), 51(2), 68-B, 68-C and 68-F - State Transport Act - Section 3 - Nationalisation of transport services - Scheme framed to exclude certain routes from private operation - Whether a scheme notifying specific routes can curtail a contract carriage permit granted for an area - Section 51(2)(i) provides that a contract carriage permit may be limited to a specified area or on a specified route or routes - Power to modify existing permits under Section 68-F includes curtailing the area or route - Excluding specific routes effectively curtails the area of operation for a private operator. (Paras 8-11)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section 68-C - Requirement of providing "adequate" service - Specification of a fixed number of carriages in a scheme is not inherently inadequate or vague, provided it is intended to meet the need. (Para 4)
(C) Statutory Interpretation - Where two provisions (State Act and Central Act) have slightly different verbiage but the same underlying intention regarding public interest and efficient transport systems, the exercise of power under one can be validated under the other. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The appellant held a contract carriage permit for a specific region. The State Government notified a scheme for the nationalisation of transport services, excluding 56 specific routes from the operation of private contract carriage permits and prohibiting private transport services on those routes. The appellant challenged the scheme, contending that since contract carriage permits are granted for an area and not for specific routes, the scheme could not curtail the permit by mentioning routes.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the distinction between "area" and "route" is not always rigid under the Act. Since Section 51(2)(i) allows a contract carriage permit to be limited to specified routes, a nationalisation scheme can effectively curtail an area permit by subtracting specific routes. Furthermore, Section 68-F explicitly allows the modification of permits to curtail the area or route.
Issues: Whether a scheme framed under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which excludes specific routes, can legally curtail a contract carriage permit that was originally granted for an entire area.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the taking over of certain routes exclusively for State undertakings renders that portion of the area ineffective for a private operator. Under Section 51(2)(i) and Section 68-F, the authority has the power to limit or modify permits by curtailing either the area or the routes. Therefore, notifying specific routes for nationalisation is a valid method of curtailing an area-based permit.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a scheme excluding specific routes is valid for contract carriage permits granted for an area, and whether statutory requirements for adequate service were met. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 )
3. The terms area and route are not inherently inconsistent; Section 51(2)(i) allows limiting contract carriage permits to specific routes. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. A contract carriage permit granted for an area can be legally curtailed by the exclusion of specific routes within that area under a nationalisation scheme. (Para 10 , 11 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 11 )
6. Does a scheme framed under a state transport act satisfy the requirements of Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act?
Yes, if the underlying intention and requirements—providing efficient, adequate, and public-interest services—are practically the same, the exercise of power is valid under Section 68-C. (Para 3 )
7. Does specifying a fixed number of carriages satisfy the requirement to provide adequate services under Section 68-C?
Yes, providing a specific number of carriages is a valid way to implement the requirement, provided there is no evidence that the number is inadequate. (Para 4 )
8. Can a contract carriage permit granted for an area be curtailed by notifying specific routes for exclusion?
Yes. Under Section 51(2)(i), contract carriage permits can be limited to specified routes. Therefore, an area can be effectively reduced by subtracting specific routes. (Para 9 , 10 )
9. Which provisions prevail if there is an inconsistency between a nationalisation scheme under Chapter IVA and permit rules in Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act?
Under Section 68B, the provisions of Chapter IVA apply notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in Chapter IV of the Act. (Para 11 )
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH, J.: The appellant who appeals by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated March 30, 1964 is the holder of a contract carriage permit granted to him by the Regional Transport Authority, Agra and valid till February 1, 1955. He owns a single contract carriage and his permit covers the whole of the Agra region which comprises the six districts of Mathura, Agra, Aligarh, Etah, Etawah and Manipuri, No special route or routes are indicated in his permit and the termini of his operation are the frontiers of this region on all sides. In 1955, the Government of Uttar Pradesh purporting to act under Sec. 3 of the U. P. Road Transport Services (Development) Act, 1955, framed a scheme for nationalisation of transport services in Uttar Pradesh. The scheme which was then framed was struck down by an order of the High Court of Allahabad on the petition of some private operators. In 1955, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was amended by the introduction of Chapter IVA dealing with special provisions relating to State Transport Undertakings. This amendment was introduced by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956 with effect from February 16, 1957. After the amending Act the scheme was reconsidered by the State Government and action was taken under Chapter IVA to notify it under Sec. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act. In this scheme 56 routes, which were mentioned by name, were removed from the operation of contract carriage permits issued to private operators in the Agra region and Government announced that "adequate State Road Transport contract carriage would be provided on those routes or portions thereof." The functioning of transport services other than those put by the State Road Transport Services was prohibited on all those routes. The private operators objected again but their objections were overruled and the scheme was published in the Gazette on October 17, 1959. A writ petition (Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 26622 of 1959) was filed by the appellant and others objecting to the scheme on various grounds. This was allowed on February 1, 1962 by Mr. Justice Oak who set aside the scheme and remanded it for reconsideration in the light of his order. The scheme was not struck down in full but only partially in respect of the petitioners in the High Court. It was ordered, however, that the State Government would be at liberty to enforce the scheme in other respects. The main reason for striking down the scheme in respect of those petitioners was that their objections were not considered and they were not given a reasonable opportunity to produce evidence in support of their objections.
2. After remand objections were considered and an order was passed by the Legal Remembrancer on October 18, 1963 by which the Scheme was reaffirmed overruling the objections. The only change made was that instead of the provision of "adequate" contract, carriage service by the State Road Transport Contract Carriage Services it was provided that 16 contract carriage services or more or less in accordance with the need from time to time" would be provided on the routes or portion thereof which were notified. The appellant filed a petition in the High Court challenging the scheme. It was heard by Mr. Justice Broome and rejected by him on March 17, 1964. The appellant then filed a special appeal under the Letters Patent against the decision of Mr. Justice Broome. The High Court by the impugned order dismissed it "summarily" though it passed a fairly detailed order. It is against the order that the present appeal has been filed.
3. The first contention of Mr. G. S. Pathak is that although the scheme purports to be under Sec. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, the requirements of that section were not borne in mind inasmuch as the scheme framed under Sec. 3 of the U. P. Act was without any change approved and notified after the successive remands by the High Court. It is therefore necessary to see how far the t
