A scheme for taking over stage carriage services under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, inserted by S. 62 of Act 100 of 1956, is valid if it complies with the mandatory requirements of the Act and is not vague, indefinite, contradictory, or destructive of co-ordination.

Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SCHEME FOR TAKING OVER STAGE CARRIAGE SERVICES - VALIDITY - CHALLENGED ON GROUNDS OF VAGUENESS, NON-COMPLIANCE WITH MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS, DESTRUCTIVE OF CO-ORDINATION AND AFFECTING ROUTES NOT COVERED BY THE SCHEME - HELD, SCHEME VALID AND CHALLENGES UNFOUNDED.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants, C. P. C. Motor Service, Mysore, challenged a scheme approved and applied by the State of Mysore for taking over stage carriage services to the complete exclusion of private operators, on grounds of vagueness, non-compliance with mandatory requirements, destructive of co-ordination, and affecting routes not covered by the scheme.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the scheme was not vague or indefinite, as it provided sufficient particulars as required by Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act. The omission of fares and timings from the scheme was not a defect, as these matters were to be determined by the transport authorities under the Act. The scheme was not destructive of co-ordination, as transhipment between State-owned buses and private omnibuses at the border of the Mysore District, where the routes operated by the State Transport Undertaking and the private operators bifurcated, would not connote a lack of co-ordination. The Court also held that the scheme did not contradict the order of the Chief Minister, who had upheld the objection of the appellants, as the order was properly read to mean that the private operators would be excluded from that portion of the route lying within the District of Mysore, even though that route was different from the route, which had been taken over.
Issues: 1. Whether the scheme was vague, indefinite, and contradictory. 2. Whether the scheme was destructive of co-ordination. 3. Whether the scheme affected routes not covered by the scheme. 4. Whether the scheme complied with the mandatory requirements of Sections 68-C and 68-E of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The scheme was not vague or indefinite, as it provided sufficient particulars as required by Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act. The omission of fares and timings from the scheme was not a defect, as these matters were to be determined by the transport authorities under the Act. 2. The scheme was not destructive of co-ordination, as transhipment between State-owned buses and private omnibuses at the border of the Mysore District, where the routes operated by the State Transport Undertaking and the private operators bifurcated, would not connote a lack of co-ordination. 3. The scheme did not affect routes not covered by the scheme, as the notification of the Government must be read in two parts: the first referring to the whole of the route which is taken over, and the second with respect to the portion of the route lying within the District of Mysore. The portion lying within the District of Mysore has been notified separately as within the exclusive operation of the State Transport Undertaking. The natural result of it is that private operators would not be able to ply their omnibuses on that sector, and by "route" is meant, as already stated, not only the notional line but also the actual road over which the omnibuses run. 4. The scheme complied with the mandatory requirements of Sections 68-C and 68-E of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the scheme was upheld as valid.

Judgement

HIDAYATULLAH, J. : The appellants, C. P. C. Motor Service, Mysore, question a scheme approved and applied by the State of Mysore by its Notification No. HD. 200/TMP/60 in Gazette (Extraordinary) on November 10, 1960. They had unsuccessfully moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, and the present appeal is filed with the special leave of this Court.

2. The appellants were running stage carriage omnibuses on 18 routes, and 14 such routes are inter-District. On September 21, 1960, the second respondent, who is the General Manager of the State Transport Undertaking, published a tentative scheme for taking over stage carriage services over 64 routes, which were shown in a schedule to the Notification, to the complete exclusion of private operators. The action was taken under Chap. IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, inserted by S. 62 of Act 100 of 1956. Objections were duly filed by the appellants, which were heard by the Chief Minister, who was the authority to hear the objections under the Rules, and they were disposed of by his order dated November 7, 1960. The scheme was approved with some modifications, and it was published along with the order in the Notification, to which we have already referred. The appellants, in their petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, raised many points before the High Court. The High Court, by its judgment under appeal dated January 30, 1961, dismissed the petition. Some of the grounds were considered in that judgment; but others had already been disposed of in other petitions, in which a common judgment was delivered by the High Court also on the same day in Writ Petition No. 75 of 1960. That order concerned another scheme for the Hassan District of Mysore State.

3. In the appeal before us, the scheme is challenged on four grounds, Shortly stated, they are, that the modified scheme is vague, indefinite and contradictory and does not carry out the orders of the Chief Minister; that there has been non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Ss. 68-C and 68-E of the Motor Vehicles Act; that the scheme is destructive of co-ordination, which is the gist of efficient motor transport services; and finally, that the routes on which the appellants operated, were in any event, not affected by the monopoly on certain routes created in favour of the State Transport Undertaking. These contentions will be dealt with in detail by us in this judgment, and need not be stated at greater length at this stage.

4. Private operators in the Mysore State including the appellants, plied their omnibuses on three different kinds of routes. They were inter-District, intra-District and intra-State. By the scheme, the State Transport Undertaking had taken over 64 routes, but the exclusion of the private operators was only in the Mysore District. In the approved scheme, this is stated in the following words:

"(d) Whether the services are to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise. 1. The State Transport Undertaking will operate services to the complete exclusion of other persons (i) on all the notified inter-district routes except in regard to the portions of inter-district routes lying outside the limits of Mysore District, and also (ii) over the entire length of each of the inter-district route lying within the limits of Mysore District.

2. In so far as the notified routes are concerned the State TransportUndertaking will operate without prejudice to rights of existing valid permit-holders for operation of Stage Carriage Services on the Inter-State routes only;"

In describing the routes in the appendix to the scheme, these routes where shown with all the stops between the termini, together with the length of the routes in miles, the maximum number of vehicles to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking and by private operators, and the maximum number of daily services (return trips) to be provided in relation to eac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1961 Supreme(SC) 384

A scheme for taking over stage carriage services under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, inserted by S. 62 of Act 100 of 1956, is valid if it complies with the mandatory requirements of the Act and is not vague, indefinite, contradictory, or destructive of co-ordination.

Cases Referred (1)