2005 Supreme(SC) 745

2005(4) Supreme 338
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
N. Santosh Hegde, K.G. Balakrishnan, D.M. Dharmadhikari, Arun Kumar & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
A.P.S.R.T.C. —Appellant
versus
Regional Transport Authority & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3700-3712 of 2001
With
C.A.No. 1674/1996, S.L.P. (C) No. 10266/1997, SLP (C) No. 10267/1997, C.A.Nos. 346-351/2002, C.A.Nos. 368-371 & 374-376/2002, C.A.Nos. 352-353, 356-357, 360-361 & 364/2002, C.A.Nos. 117-118/2002, SLP (C) No. 14923/2003, C.A.Nos. 963-969, 971-973 & 975-980/2002, 377-379/2002, 4449/2004 and 85/2004
All Decided on 28-4-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : L. Nageswar Rao, Mrs. K. Amareswari, M.N. Rao, Sr. Advocates, R. Santhanakrishnan, Jayant Muthraj, Roy Abraham, Satish, Ms. Radha Rani, G. Prabhakar, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Guntur Prabhakar, S. Srinivasan, S. Uday Kumar Sagar, D. Mahesh Babu, C.S.N. Mohan Rao, B. Ramanamurthy, Advocate for Anil Kumar, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, T.N. Rao, Maruthi Raja, A.V. Rangam, A. Ranganadhan, Buddy A. Ranganadhan, B. Vikas, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, V.G. Pragasam, Anil Kumar Tandale, G.R. Prasad, Mrs. P.V. Padma Priya and Mrs. K. Sharda Devi, Advocates.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Sections 88, 99, 100, 102, 103 and 104—Schemes for providing transport services covering the route falling within the mofussil service which was nationalized—Scheme contains five exceptions for which permits can be issued to private operators—One of the exceptions is in favour of ‘the existing town services operating on the notified routes’—Whether under the said exception permits can be issued in favour of fresh applicants for permits for town services routes falling on or overlapping with the nationalised mofussil service—(No)—Respondent 3 who is not an existing town service operator submitted an application to the Regional Transport Authority for permanent stage carriage permit on the town service route—Whether Regional Transport Authority was justified in rejecting application of respondent 3—(Yes)—Under exception 2 of the Scheme, permits can be issued only to existing town services operating on the notified routes.

       Held : The object of the Scheme ­appears to be to nationalise the entire ­service. Through nationalisation of the service effort is to provide better service to the commuters at cheaper cost. One of the exceptions to the Scheme is for existing town services ­operating on the notified routes. The reason for which appears to be that the existing town services need not be disturbed so that the commuters do not suffer. The question for consideration is, whether mofussil service will cover town services operating on notified routes? A combined reading of clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Scheme reproduced herein­before shows that the Scheme excludes all private operators. These clauses provide for complete exclusion of all other persons holding stage carriage permits. There is no scope for any doubt. All private operators including those operating on town service routes are excluded, subject, however, to the exceptions. Looking at the issue from a different angle, it will be seen that if the existing town services operating on the notified routes were not to be affected by the Scheme, there was no need for the exception. This also answers the argument that since town service has not been mentioned in clause 3 of the Scheme, the town service has been left free. Clauses 3, 4 and 5 have to be read together­ to find out the real purport of the Scheme. (Paras 11 and 12)

       There is no scope for thinking that the Scheme does not say what it is intended to say. We must not overlook the language used against clauses 4 and 5 of the Scheme which provide for complete exclusion of all other persons holding stage carriage permits on the proposed route and on the overlapping routes except for the exceptions contained to the Scheme itself. There is yet another reason which militates against the view of the Full Bench on the point. A reference to the language of the exception would show that only existing town services operating on the notified routes have been permitted. In some of the other Schemes to which reference has been made in this judgment for purpose of illustration it will be seen that wherever the scope of the exception was to be widened so as to cover more categories of operators, it has been specifically provided for. In one of the Schemes of holders of future stage carriage permits in respect of town service routes have been allowed under the exception while in another case instead of existing town services, the words used are ‘holders of permits’. Holders of permits can include those who happen to hold permits in future. It is in the scheme in the present case that exception No.2 has been worded restrictively so as to cover only existing town services operating on the notified routes. Thus we are unable to accept the conclusion of the Full Bench contained in the impugned judgment that the town services operating on the route, even though overlapping with mofussils services, are entitled to permit under the Scheme which is subject matter of the present appeal. (Para 18)

       The impugned Full Bench decision further draws on the principle of purposive interpretation for upholding the view that permits can be granted for town service even if mofussil service is nationalized. For invoking the principle of purposive interpretation the Bench felt that there was some ambiguity in the scheme or something was not clear. We have carefully gone through the scheme which is subject matter of the present appeals and we do not find any ambiguity or lack of clarity in the Scheme so as to invoke the principle of purposive interpretation. For all these reasons we are unable to agree with the view taken by the Full Bench in the impugned judgment. In our view, under exception 2 contained in the Note appended to the Scheme, subject matter of the present appeals, permits can be issued only to existing town services operating on the notified routes. This means only existing operators on the notified routes are eligible for permits. Fresh applicants or future applicants are ­totally ineligible for getting permits for town services operating on notified routes. These appeals are accordingly allowed. The ­impugned judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court is set aside. (Paras 20 and 21)