1. State Transport Undertaking's scheme for taking over passenger bus routes to the exclusion of private operators under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 145
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
23rd April, 1965.
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH, J.R. MUDHOLKAR AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
B. H. Aswathanarayana Singh etc., Appellants
Versus
The State of Mysore and others (in all the Appeals), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 250 to 286 of 1965.
Advocates appeared
Mr. N.C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, (M/s. N.S. Narayana Rao, B.P. Singh, D. Gundu Rao, A. G. Mahasharappa, A. T. Sundaravardan and R.B. Datar, Advocates, with him), for Appellants (in Civil Appeals Nos. 250 to 269 and 276 to 286 of 1965); Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate, (M/s. B. Dutta and M. Rangaswami, Advocates, and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Appellants (In Civil Appeals Nos. 270 to 275 of 1965); Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, (Mr. R. Gopala Krishnan, Advocate with him), for Respondent No. 2 (In all the Appeals).
Advocates:
A.G.MAHESHARAPPA, A.T.SUNDURAVARDAN, A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.DUTTA, B.P.SINGH, CO., D.G.RAO, G.S.PATHAK, Gopala Krishnan, J.B.DADACHAN, M.RANGASVVAMY, N.C.CHATTERJI, N.S.NARAYANA RAO, O.C.MATHUR, R.B.DATAR, Ravindra Narayan
A.G.MAHESHARAPPA, A.T.SUNDURAVARDAN, A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.DUTTA, B.P.SINGH, CO., D.G.RAO, G.S.PATHAK, Gopala Krishnan, J.B.DADACHAN, M.RANGASVVAMY, N.C.CHATTERJI, N.S.NARAYANA RAO, O.C.MATHUR, R.B.DATAR, Ravindra Narayan
Specification of minimum and maximum vehicles/trips in a transport scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is permissible as it provides necessary operational flexibility and satisfies the requirement to provide "particulars" of the service.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 68-C, 68-D and 68-E - Scheme for taking over road transport services - Specification of minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips - Whether permissible under the Act - The term "particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered" in Section 68-C does not necessitate the specification of a precise number of vehicles and trips - Providing a range (minimum and maximum) is sufficient to inform objectors and allows for necessary flexibility based on seasonal transport needs - Such a provision is not a fraud on Section 68-E unless the disparity between the minimum and maximum is so great as to be unreasonable. (Paras 4, 5, 7, 10)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Modification of draft scheme - If the approved scheme is in accordance with the law, a defect in the draft scheme (such as omitting the minimum number of services) is not fatal, especially where objectors raised concerns about the absence of such a minimum and the government subsequently included it in the approved scheme. (Para 13)
(C) Inter-State Routes - Definition - A route is determined by its termini; if both termini are within the same State, it is not an inter-State route, regardless of whether the road continues into another State. (Para 16)
(D) Administrative Law - Competency of authority - Where rules nominate the head of the state government to hear and decide objections on behalf of the State Government, such an authority is competent to do so. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
Motor bus operators challenged the validity of a scheme published by a State Transport Undertaking to take over passenger bus routes to their exclusion. The approved scheme specified both the minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips for each route. The appellants contended that the law required a precise number and that the introduction of a minimum number in the approved scheme, which was absent in the draft scheme, violated the principles of natural justice.
Findings of Court:
The specification of minimum and maximum numbers of vehicles and trips is permissible under the Act and does not violate the requirement to provide "particulars" of the service. The modification of the draft scheme to include a minimum number did not violate natural justice as it addressed the objectors' concerns. The routes involved were not inter-State, and the authority appointed to hear objections was competent.
Issues: Whether the specification of minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips in a scheme under Section 68-C is ultra vires; whether the omission of the minimum number in the draft scheme violated principles of natural justice; and whether the route was an inter-State route.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that "particulars" in Section 68-C means details necessary for objectors to make their objections, which can include a range of vehicles and trips to provide operational flexibility. A modification to a draft scheme that brings it into compliance with the Act and addresses objectors' concerns does not breach natural justice.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether specifying minimum and maximum vehicles/trips is ultra vires and whether introducing minimums in the approved scheme violates principles of natural justice. (Para 3 )
3. Particulars under Section 68-C include minimum and maximum vehicle/trip counts, providing necessary flexibility for seasonal demand without violating modification procedures under Section 68-E. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Specifying minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips in a transport scheme satisfies the requirement of providing particulars under Section 68-C, Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 12 )
5. Appeals dismissed. (Para 18 )
6. Does the requirement to provide particulars of the nature of services under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act necessitate specifying an exact number of vehicles and trips?
No. The term particulars means details. Specifying a minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips satisfies this requirement and provides necessary flexibility for varying transport needs without being a fraud on the Act. (Para 4 , 5 , 12 )
7. Does introducing a minimum number of vehicles in an approved scheme, when only a maximum was specified in the draft scheme, violate principles of natural justice?
No. If the final approved scheme complies with Section 68-C, a defect in the draft scheme is not fatal, particularly if objectors raised concerns about the absence of a minimum. (Para 13 )
8. When is Central Government approval required for a transport scheme under the proviso to Section 68-D(3)?
Approval is required for inter-State routes. A route is considered inter-State only if its two termini are located in different States; routes with both termini in one State are not inter-State. (Para 16 )
9. Is the Chief Minister competent to hear and decide objections to a transport scheme under Section 68-D?
Yes, provided the rules framed under the Act nominate the Chief Minister as the authority to hear objections on behalf of the State Government. (Para 17 )
Judgment
WANCHOO, J. :- These 37 appeals on certificates from the judgment of the Mysore High Court raise common questions and will be dealt with together. The appellants are motor bus operators in the district of Bellary in the State of Mysore. It appears that two draft schemes for taking over passenger bus routes were published by the State Transport Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as the Undertaking) in May 1962. Objections to those schemes were heard by the State Government and the schemes were approved after some modifications and published in the Mysore Gazette in August 1962. The approved schemes were however challenged by the motor bus operators who were operating in the district before the High Court by writ petitions and the two schemes were quashed by the High Court on September 24, 1962, for reasons into which it is unnecessary to go.
2. Then the Undertaking published another scheme on November 1, 1962 in the Mysore gazette for taking over the routes mentioned therein to the entire exclusion of the existing motor bus operators. This scheme was published under the State Transport Undertaking (Mysore) Rules, 1960. Objections to the scheme were heard by the State Government on various dates in April and May 1963. In the meantime, the State Transport Undertakings Rules were under modification and the revised rules were published on April 25, 1963. The last date for hearing of objections by the State Government was May 23, 1963. On July 25, 1963, the Rules of 1963 came into force. The order of the State Government approving the scheme was made on April 18, 1964 and thereafter the approved scheme with such modifications as the State Government had made was published in the gazette on May 7, 1964. Then followed applications by the Undertaking to the Regional Transport Authority for issue of permits in accordance with the scheme. Soon thereafter writ petitions were filed by various motor bus operators challenging the validity of the approved scheme in the first week of August 1964, and the implementation of the scheme was stayed by the High Court. On February 23, 1965, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions. Thereafter the High Court granted certificates to the appellants to appeal; and that is how the matter has come up before us.
3. A large number of contentions have been urged on behalf of the appellants to which we shall refer in due course. But the two main contentions that have been urged are : (i) it was not open, under the Motor Vehicles Act, No. 4 of 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules thereunder, to the State Government when approving the scheme to specify minimum and maximum number of motor vehicles to be put on each route and minimum and maximum number of trips to be made on each route and in so far as the approved scheme makes such a provisions it is ultra vires, and (ii) when the draft scheme was published the Rules of 1960 were in force and the draft scheme only specified the maximum number of vehicles and trips for each route, but by the time the State Government disposed of the objections, Rules of 1963 had come into force and the approved scheme provided both for minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips on each route. As, however, the minimum number was not specified in the draft scheme, there was no opportunity to the objectors to put forward their objections to this feature of the scheme and therefore principles of natural justice had been violated by the State Government, which has been held to be a quasi judicial authority for this purpose, when approving the scheme.
4. We shall deal with these two main objections first and then consider other points raised on behalf of the appellants. It is not in dispute that one fixed number of vehicles as well as of trips can be provided in the scheme. The question that arises is whether the fixing of a minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips, as has been done in the approved scheme, is also permissible under the Act. Th
