1960 Supreme(Pat) 133

PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Kanhaiya Singh JJ.
Deep Narain Pandey
Versus
State Of Bihar
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 221 of 1960 ; 333 of 1960 ; 334 of 1960 ; 413 of 1960 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 08, 1960

The grant of a monopoly to a State Road Transport Corporation in pursuance of an approved scheme under Sec. 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act disqualifies a private operator from plying his vehicles on the notified route, between any two intermediate points on the notified route, and on any portion of the route of the private operator which overlaps any portion of the notified route.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - Sec. 68C, 68D, 68E, 68F - Scheme for taking over certain routes by State Transport undertaking - Validity - Renewal of permits - Refusal - Legality.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a motor transport company, challenged the scheme prepared by the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation under Sec. 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act for notification of certain routes, and the subsequent approval of the scheme by the Minister of Transport. The petitioner also challenged the refusal of renewal of its permits by the Regional Transport Authority under Sec. 68F(2) of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

1. The scheme prepared by the State Transport undertaking was not vague or uncertain, as the tabular portion of the scheme must be read in the context of the preamble of the scheme and the draft scheme published earlier. 2. There was no possibility of discrimination by the State Transport Corporation in taking charge of the routes, as the Corporation had already taken over charge of the entire routes and not of portions thereof. 3. The failure of the State Government to make rules under Sec. 68-I of the Act did not affect the legal validity of the draft scheme or the approved scheme. 4. The petitioner was not entitled to renewal of its permits under Sec. 68F(2) of the Act, as the grant of a monopoly to the State Road Transport Corporation in pursuance of an approved scheme under Sec. 68C disqualified a private operator from plying his vehicles on the notified route, between any two intermediate points on the notified route, and on any portion of the route of the private operator which overlapped any portion of the notified route. 5. The grant of a permanent permit to the State Road Transport Corporation in violation of Sec. 57(2) of the Act was a mere irregularity causing no prejudice to the petitioner, and, in the circumstances, the High Court would not be justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for cancellation of the permanent permit.

Issues: 1. Whether the scheme prepared by the State Transport undertaking was vague or uncertain. 2. Whether there was a possibility of discrimination by the State Transport Corporation in taking charge of the routes. 3. Whether the failure of the State Government to make rules under Sec. 68-I of the Act affected the legal validity of the draft scheme or the approved scheme. 4. Whether the petitioner was entitled to renewal of its permits under Sec. 68F(2) of the Act. 5. Whether the grant of a permanent permit to the State Road Transport Corporation in violation of Sec. 57(2) of the Act was a mere irregularity causing no prejudice to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The tabular portion of the scheme must be read in the context of the preamble of the scheme and the draft scheme published earlier. 2. The State Transport Corporation had already taken over charge of the entire routes and not of portions thereof. 3. Sec. 68-I of the Act is only an enabling provision, and the failure of the State Government to make rules does not affect the legal validity of the draft scheme or the approved scheme. 4. Sec. 68F(2) of the Act disqualifies a private operator from plying his vehicles on the notified route, between any two intermediate points on the notified route, and on any portion of the route of the private operator which overlaps any portion of the notified route. 5. The grant of a permanent permit to the State Road Transport Corporation in violation of Sec. 57(2) of the Act was a mere irregularity causing no prejudice to the petitioner.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.