Back
1972 Supreme(Pat) 127
PATNA HIGH COURT
N.L.Untwalia and S.Akbar Husain JJ.
Marwari Motor Service
Versus
Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1324 of 1970 ;
Decided On : JULY 25, 1972
Private operators are not completely excluded from a nationalised route unless the approved scheme specifically provides for their exclusion.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SEC. 68-C - SCHEME FOR NATIONALISATION OF PASSENGER TRANSPORT SERVICES - INTERPRETATION - PRIVATE OPERATORS NOT COMPLETELY EXCLUDED FROM NATIONALISED ROUTE - RENEWAL OF PERMIT - REFUSAL - NOT JUSTIFIED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a private bus operator, had been operating a stage carriage service on the Hazaribagh-Hazaribagh Road route for several years. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (BSRTC) proposed a scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for the nationalisation of passenger transport services on the route. The scheme was approved by the state government with the modification that private operators who were operating directly on the Hazaribagh-Bagodar route were excluded, but private operators having only one terminus out of these two termini or passing through this route having different termini were not excluded. The petitioner's permit was renewed for five years in 1964, and it continued to operate the service until 1969. However, the Regional Transport Authority refused to renew the petitioner's permit in 1969, holding that the major portion of the route was nationalised and that the balance of weight was in favour of the BSRTC. The petitioner appealed to the Appeal Board of the State Transport Authority, but the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner then filed a revision application under Section 64-A of the Act, which was dismissed in limine by the state government.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Regional Transport Authority's refusal to renew the petitioner's permit was not justified. The court found that the approved scheme did not completely exclude private operators from the nationalised route, and that the petitioner was not operating directly on the Hazaribagh-Bagodar route. The court also held that the Appeal Board and the state government had erred in law in upholding the Regional Transport Authority's decision.
Issues: Whether the approved scheme completely excluded private operators from the nationalised route.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the approved scheme did not completely exclude private operators from the nationalised route. The court interpreted the phrase "direct services" in the scheme to mean that only private operators who were operating directly on the Hazaribagh-Bagodar route were excluded, but private operators having only one terminus out of these two termini or passing through this route having different termini were not excluded. The court also held that the Regional Transport Authority, the Appeal Board, and the state government had erred in law in refusing to renew the petitioner's permit.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders of the Regional Transport Authority, the Appeal Board, and the state government, and directed the Regional Transport Authority to reconsider the petitioner's application for renewal of its permit in light of the court's judgment.
1. The petitioner firm in this writ application has obtained a rule from this Court against the respondents to show cause Why the order dated 14-8-1969, a copy of which is Annexnre 3 to the writ application, made by the Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority, respondent 1, refusing renewal of the petitioners stage carriage permit for the route Hazaribag-Hazaribag Road, order dated 24-11-1969 of the Appeal Board of the State Transport Authority, respondent 2, a copy of which is Annexure 4, and the order of the State Government, respondent 4, communicated to the petitioner in their letter dated 7-4-1970 (annexure 5) be not called up and quashed by grant of a writ. The 3rd respondent is the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation which has objected to the grant of renewal of the petitioners permit. Cause has been shown on behalf of respondent 3 alone.
2. For several years past the petitioner had been running a stage carriage from Hazaribagh to Hazaribagh Road and back on grant of permits to it. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation proposed a scheme under Sec. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act hereinafter called the Act. With some modifications it was approved and the approved scheme was published in the Bihar Extraordinary Gazette dated July 29, 1960. A copy of the relevant portion of the scheme is Annexure 1 to the writ application. The petitioners case is that in absence of a statutory definition of the phrase "direct services" a dispute arose sometime in the year 1962 between the Corporation and some private operators as to the meaning of the said phrase, which led to the filing of representations, under Section 64-A of the Act, as it stood under the Bihar Amendment. The then Minister, Transport, took a decision by his order dated 7-9-63, a copy of which is Annexure 2 to the writ application, that the said phrase meant that only those private operators who were operating their services between the two termini were excluded; the others were not excluded. The petitioners case further is that accordingly its permit was renewed for the year 1964 for five years, and the renewed permit was valid till 25-3-69. For a further renewal of this permit, the petitioner filed an application before respondent 1 under Section 58 of the Act. It came up for consideration in the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority held on 14-8-1969. The said authority by the order (Annexure 3) took the view that since major portion of the route Hazaribagh-Hazaribagh Road was a notified one, the balance of weight was in favour of the Corporation. It was, therefore, resolved that the Corporation be asked to place more buses on the route Hazaribagh-Hazaribagh Road via Bagodar by a certain date up to which the temporary permit issued to the petitioner was to expire failing which another temporary permit was to issue to the petitioner in public interest.
3. The petitioner went up in appeal. The Chairman of the Appeal Board affirmed the order of the Regional Transport Authority and dismissed the appeal. The said order is Annexure 4. The petitioners revision application under Sec. 64-A of the Act was dismissed in limine by the State Government and the dismissal was communicated by Annexure 5.
4. Mr. Saptmi Tha, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that reading the approved scheme with reference to the scheme proposed by the Coloration, it would be clear that private operators who were operating directly on the route Hazaribagh-Bagodar were completely excluded but there was no exclusion of a private operator operating on a longer or a shorter route than Hazaribagh Bagador. Mr. Lakshman Sharan Sinha appearing for the Corporation refuted this argument and submitted that since the scheme was approved for the route Hazaribagh-Bagodar to the complete exclusion of the private operators, they could not be allowed to operate on any portion of this route irrespective of the fact whether they were operating on a longer or a shorter route. The question i
