Bihar
State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State Transport Tribunal & Ors [1991]
INSC 67 (22 February
1991)
Punchhi,
M.M. Punchhi, M.M. Ramaswamy, K.
CITATION:
1991 SCR (1) 667 1991 SCC (2) 418 JT 1991 (2) 557 1991 SCALE (1)341
ACT:
Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939: Stage Carriage permits-Grant of-Private Operators-Bhukunda-Chaibasa
route-Part of rout Ranchi-Chaibasa a nationlised route covered by notified
Scheme under section 68-D(3)-Objections by State Road Transport Corporation
rejected and permits granted to two private operators.
Section
2(28-A)-Definition of word 'route'-Notified Scheme dated 1.4.1960 converting 7
routes including Ranchi- Chaibasa route-Interpretation of words 'direct
service'- Whether the view taken by High Court in Marwari Motor Service's case
is any more relevant in view of the decision of this Court in Adarsh Travels'
case.
HEAD NOTE:
The
State Transport Authority, Bihar invited application for grant of Stage
Carriage permits for the route named, Bhukunda-Chaibasa via Patratu-Pithoria-Kanke-
Ranchi-Chakradharpur part of which, that is, Ranchi Chaibasa is covered under a
notified Scheme dated 1.4.1960, duly in force, under the Act. The Bihar State
Road Transport Corporation, a State Undertaking, filed its objections claiming
that no private operator could be permitted to operate the said route as part
of the route being Ranchi- Chaibasa was itself a notified route and grant of
permits on the route in question would contravene the notified Scheme.
Taking
the view that the over-lapping Ranchi-Chaibasa route was restrictedly notified
for direct services only, the objections raised by the Corporation were
rejected and permits for the route in question granted to respondents 3 and 4.
Corporation's appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and thereafter
Writ Petition before the Patna High Court being unsuccessful, it has come in
appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the
Writ Petition in limine. Allowing the appeal and quashing all the three orders,
this Court.
HELD:
In the light of the observations made in Constitution 668 Bench decision of
this Court in Adarsh Travels' case defining the word 'route', the Ranchi-Chibasa
route is identified as the line of travel on which State Undertaking on nationalisation
is allowed to run its vehicles. The bracketed words 'direct service' occuring
in seriol no. 7 when contrasted with entries in serial nos. 1 to 6 reveal that
the total route of Ranchi-Chaibasa, without leaving any portion, stood nationalised
signifying by its name that Ranchi-Chaibsa route is a straight and direct line
of travel which would be traversed by a vehicle by the State Transport
Undertaking between two termini rendering all kinds of services. Any further
interpretation would frustrate the object of Chapter IV-A whereunder the scheme
is prepared.
[672G-673B]
If the interpretation put by the Patna High Court in Marwari Motor Service's
case to the bracketed words 'direct service' is to be kept valid, it would
frustrate the very purpose of nationalisation, for any person in that event
could operate on a nationalised route by adding thereto, or substracting therefrom,
some kilometerage and keep one terminus as a point of start, or a point of
ending, on an un-notified route and put forward his willingness to submit
himself to the discipline called 'corridor restictions' which practice has been
deprecated by this Court. [673E-F] M/s Marwari Motor Service v. Chotanagpur
Regional Transport Authority and Others, AIR 1973 Patna (Vol. 60) 273, referred to.
Adarsh
Travels Bus Service & Another v. Stat of U.P. & Others, [1985] (Suppl.)
3 SCR 661, followed.
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3693 of 1982.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.1982 of the Patna High court in C.W.J.C. No.
4087 of 1981.
Ranjit
Kumar for the Appellant.
Ex-Parti
for the Respondents.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUNCHHI, J. This appeal by special leave
is directed against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 29-1-1982 passed in Civil Writ Number 4087 of 1981 dismissing the
Writ Petition of the appellant in limine.
The
appellant, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, is a 669 State Transport
Undertaking. Under the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereafter
referred to as the 'Act'), the State Transport Authority invited applications
for the grant of stage carriage permits for the route named Bhukunda-Chaibasa
via Patratu-Pithoria-Kanke-Ranchi- Chakradharpur part of which, that is, Ranchi-Chaibasa
is covered under a notified scheme dated 1-4-1960, duly in force, under the
provisions of the Act. On applications received in response to the invitation,
the Corporation filed its objections before the State Transport Authority
claiming that no private operator could be permitted to operate on the said
route, as part of it, being Ranchi- Chaibasa, was by itself a notified route
and the grant of permits on the route in question would contravene a notified
scheme. The objection of the Corporation was rejected by the State Transport
Authority in its meeting held on 23rd and 24th January, 1979 taking the view that the
overlapping Ranchi-Chaibasa route was restrictedly notified for direct services
only and as such there could be no legal objection to the grant of permits on
the Bhukunda-Chaibasa route. It accordingly granted permits to respondents 3
and 4 herein.
Appellant's
appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Biharwas dismissed and
the view of the State Transport Authority was upheld. The Appellate Tribunal in
support of its view placed reliance on a division bench of the Patna High Court
in M/s Marwari Motor Service v.
Chotanagpur
Regional Transport Authority and others, AIR 1973 Patna (Vol 60) 273 in which such an
objection as raised herein was negatived. The appellant's writ petition against
the orders of the State Transport Appellat Tribunal, Bihar was dismissed in limine giving cause to the
appellant to approach this Court for appropriate relief.
The
notified scheme dated 1-4-1960, afore-referred to, where-under the
Ranchi-Chaibasa route was declared a nationalised route was the brain child of
the Appellant- Corporation itself. Initially a draft scheme was published in
the Bihar Gazette on 13-1-1960 under the provisions of Section
68-C of the Act. Objections were invited to the proposed scheme and after
considering the objections received, the State Government approved the scheme
with some modifications under section 68-D(2) of the Act. The approved scheme
was then notified under section 68-D(3) of the Act in the Bihar Gazette on April 1, 1960. The relevant extract of the scheme
is reproduced below:
"The
Bihar State Road Transport Corporation shall run and operate stage carriage
services relating to routes or portions thereof specified below to the complete
exclusion of other persons except those who, on the dates, specified 670 below,
hold permanent permits to run stage carriages in those routes and are hereby
allowed to operate them until the dates of expiration of the existing permits.
------------------------------------------------------------
Sl. Nature of Name of route Name of Date from which No. service service
services as proposed to be plied
------------------------------------------------------------
1.
Stage Ranchi-Muri All 1st April, 1961 carriage or portions services
thereof
2.
Ditto Hazaribagh Ditto 1st April, 1960 Ranchi or portions thereof
3.
Ditto Barhi-Bagodar- Ditto Ditto Dumri-Gobind- pur or portions thereof
4.
Ditto Giridih-Dumri Ditto Ditto or portions thereof
5.
Ditto Giridih-Jamua- Ditto 1st April, 1961
Kedarma or portions thereof
6.
Ditto Jamua-Chakai Ditto Ditto or portions thereof
7.
Ditto Ranchi-Chaibasa Ditto 1st April,1960 (direct service)
------------------------------------------------------------ It is evident from
the Entry in serial no. 7 that the name of the route is Ranchi-Chaibasa and in
this Entry alone that the bracketed words 'direct service' finds mention
whereas in the remaining serial nos. 1 to 6, the main routes or portions
thereof are contrastingly 671 mentioned. In Marwari Motor Service's case
(supra), the then writ petitioner stood already given a stage carriage permit
for the route Hazaribag-Hazaribag Road and when its renewal was objected to by
the corporation on the ground that it would overlap Hazaribag-Bagodar notified
route, the words 'direct service' occuring in the relevant entry of the
notification under the notified route was required to be interpreted. The
contention of the said writ petitioner before the High Court was that though
private operators stood ousted on the Hazaribag-Bagodar route, it could not be
ousted from operating on a longer or shorter route even though overlapping
wholly or partially on the Hazaribag- Bagodar route. The corporation refuted
the argument by contending that no private operator could be permitted to
operate on any portion of the route even if he had tended to operate on a
longer or a shorter route. Confronted with this situation, the Patna High Court
ventured, in the absence of any direct binding judicial precedent, to solve the
question by adopting the interpretation given to the bracketed words 'direct
service by the Transport Minister of the Bihar Government to mean the exclusion
of private operators for direct transport services only and not to the
exclusion of private operators thereon overlapping on longer or shorter routes.
Another factor which appealed to the High Court was that though the scheme had
come into force in 1960 and Hazaribag-Bagodar route had been nationalised still
the then writ petitioner had thereafter been kept granted route permits on the Hazaribag-Hazaribag Road route despite overlapping on the nationalised
routes. The High Court in these circumstances made the following observations:
The
correct meaning is that private operators who were operating directly on Hazaribag-Bagodar
route were excluded, private operators having these two termini were not
allowed to operate but private operators having only one terminus out of these
two termini or passing through this route having different termini were not
excluded in the approved scheme".
Relying
on the said ratio the Transport authorities overruled the objection of the
Corporation.
We
have had the advantage of hearing Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant only since no one appeared either on behalf of the State of Bihar nor for the permit holders
respondents 3 and 4. The sole point for consideration is whether the view taken
by the Patna High Court in Marwari Motor Service's case (supras in any more rele-
672 vant in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Adarsh
Travels Bus Service & Another v. State of U.P. & Others, [1985] (Supp.)
3 SCR 661.
In Adarsh
Travels's case (supra), this Court ruled that if the route has been nationalised
under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, a private operator with a permit
to ply stage carriage for another route, which has a common overlapping sector
with the nationalised route, can ply his vehicle over that part of the
overlapping common sector if he does not pick up or drop passengers on the
overlapping part of the route, and the question would really get the right
answer on the terms of the scheme rather than on the provisions of the statute.
The word 'route' was introduced to be defined in section 2(28A) of the Act by
amendment from March 2,
1970 to mean 'the line
of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle
between one terminus and another. Spelling out the necessity for its so
defining it was recorded:
"The
introduction of section 2(28A) defining the expression 'route' appears to have
been necessitated to dispel the confusion consequent upon the seeming
acceptance by this Court in Nilkantha Prasad and Others v. State of Bihar,
[1962] Supp. 1 SCR 728 of the suggested differences between 'route' and
'highway' by the Privy Council in Kelani valley Motor Transit Co. Ltd. v.
Colombo Ratnapura Omnibus Co. Ltd., [1946] A.C. 338 where it was said, 'A
"highway" is the physical track along which an omnibus runs, whilst a
"route" appears to their Lordships to be an abstract conception of
line of travel between one terminus and another, and to be something distinct
from the highway traversed .... there may be alternative roads leading from one
terminus to another but that does not make the route any highway the same.' The
present definition of route makes it a physical reality instead of an abstract
conception and no longer makes it something distinct from the highway
traversed." In the light of the above observations Ranchi-Chaibasa route
is identified as the line of travel on which State Transport Undertaking on nationalisation
is allowed to run its vehicles. The bracketed words 'direct service' occuring
in serial no. 7 when contrasted with entries in serial nos. 1 to 6 reveal that
the total route of Ranchi-Chaibasa, without leaving any portion, stood nationalised
signifying by its name that 673 Ranchi-Chaibasa route is a straight and direct
line of travel which would be traversed by a vehicle by the State Transport
Undertaking between two termini rendering all kinds of services. Any further
interpretation would frustrate the object of Chapter IV-A whereunder the scheme
is prepared. It was observed in Adarsh Travel's case (supra) as follows:
"It
is well known that under the guise of the so called 'corridor restrictions'
permits over longer routes which cover shorter notified routes 'overlapping'
parts of notified routes are more often that no misutilised since it is next to
nigh impossible to keep a proper check at every point of the route. Often times
permits for plying stage carriages from a point a short distance beyond one
terminus to a point at a short distance beyond another terminus of a notified
route have been applied for and granted subject to the so called 'corridor
restrictions' which are but mere ruses or traps to obtain permits and to
frustrate the scheme. If indeed there is any need for protecting the travelling
public from inconvenience, the State Transport Undertaking and the Government
will have to make sufficient provision in the scheme itself to avoid
inconvenience being caused to the travelling public." If the
interpretation put by the Patna High Court in Marwari Motor Service's case
(supra) to the bracketed words 'direct service' is to be kept valid, it would
frustrate the very purpose of nationalisation, for any person in that event
could operate on a nationalised route by adding thereto, or substracting therefrom,
some kilometerage and keep one terminus as a point of start, or a point of
ending, on an un-notified route and put forward his willingness to submit
himself to the discipline called 'corridor restrictions' which practice has
been deprecated by this Court.
For
the views afore-expressed, we are of the view that Marwari Motor Service's case
(supra) militates against the principles settled in Adarsh Travel's case
(supra) and thus it should be left to be confined to the facts of that case and
not any more a binding precedent. Having taken that view, we come to the
conclusion that the State Transport Authority and State Transport Appellate
Tribunal were in error in rejecting the objections of the appellant and High
Court too was in error in dismissing the writ petition in limine. Accordingly,
instead of remanding the matter to the High Court, we allow this appeal and 674
quash the aforesaid three orders but without any order as to costs. Since there
was no opposition, we permit respondents 3 and 4 to keep plying vehicles on
their permits, subject of course to their being subsisting and valid till date,
uptill 31st March, 1991, and not any further, to avoid abrupt disruption of
transport facilities. We also leave it open to the State Government to take
such steps as are further necessary to avoid inconvenience to the travelling
public and for that purpose it may coordinate with the appellant corporation by
making suitable amendment and provisions in the scheme to further that cause.
R.N.J.
Appeal allowed.
Back