A.P.
State Road Transport Corporation Vs. P.V. Ramamohan Chowdhary & Ors [1992]
INSC 50 (18 February
1992)
Ramaswamy,
K. Ramaswamy, K. Kasliwal, N.M. (J)
CITATION:
1992 AIR 888 1992 SCR (1) 830 1992 SCC (2) 235 JT 1992 (3) 377 1992 SCALE
(1)410
ACT:
Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939: Sections 68-C, 68-D and 68-E.
State
Transport Undertaking-Nationalisation scheme- Partial exemption from the
operation of the scheme-Validity of-Partial exclusion held not violative of
Article 14.
Modification
of Scheme-Powers of Government to modify the scheme-Conditions necessary for
amending the scheme discussed.
Constitution
of India, 1950: Article 14.
HEAD NOTE:
In
exercise of its power under section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the
Government of Andhra Pradesh approved a draft scheme framed under section 68-C
relating to the route Anantapur to Dharamavaram via Mamillapalli. However,
exemption was granted to persons holding permit for the routes namely
(a) Kodikonda
to Anantapur via Dharmavaram;
(b) Bukkapatnam
to Anantapur via Dharmavaram;
(c)
Interstate route Virechal to Dharmavaram via Anantapur;
(d) Anantapur
to Puttaparti via Dharmavaram and the partial exemption of these routes from
the scheme was upheld by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Thereafter,
the respondents filed a writ petition in High Court for a direction for
exemption from the operation of the scheme, and the High Court held that
exclusion of the respondents was discriminatory, Accordingly it directed the
State Govt. to consider the respondent's case and pass appropriate orders to
accord exemption from the operation of the scheme. Against the decision of the
High Court the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation filed an appeal
in this Court.
It was
contended on behalf of the respondents that since the State Government exempted
four routes from the operation of the scheme they are entitled to parity and
denial offends their right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
831
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, this Court.
HELD:
1. Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, whose constitutional validity can
no longer be questioned, gives power to the State Transport Undertaking to
exclude the private operators completely or partially from an area or route or
part thereof in the draft scheme. It gives exclusive power to offer transport
service in that area or route or part thereof. [833H, 834A]
2. The
statute itself gives power to the State to exercise discretion for formulating
a scheme for an area or route or part thereof and necessarily has the effect of
excluding the existing or potential private operators from the fields to render
transport service in that partially prohibited area etc. while retaining
similar private operators in other area, route or part thereof. The exclusion
completely or partially is allowable under the statute itself and is writ
large. The discretion need not necessarily be discriminatory. Section 68-C left
the choice to the State Transport Undertaking and so discrimination in that
sense is discernible from the section which itself authorises the State
Transport Undertaking, based on factual matrix, eliminate in its choice of a
partial exclusion of private operators in an area or route or part thereof.
Opportunity has been given to an affected party
to file his or their objections and of a right of hearing before the State
Govt. approved of the draft scheme and publication thereof in the gazette. The
exercise of discretion by the State Transport Undertaking in its selective application
of partial prohibition is controlled and regulated by the statute in Ss. 68-D
and 68-E of the Act. [834B-D] Ram Nath Verma v. State of Rajasthan, [1963] 2 S.C.R. 152. referred to.
3.
Giving primacy to the contention of violation of Article 14 would be fraught
with insidious effect of upsetting the very scheme itself since anyone of the
existing or potential operators would always contend that he too is similarly
situated with that of the exempted operators of other area, route or part
thereof and unequal treatment has been meted out in the grant of permit to
offer transport service offending his right under Article 14. [834H, 835A]
4. It
is now settled law that even on a partial overlapping approved 832 scheme
private operators have been totally prohibited to have corridor shelters and
could no longer enter into the frozen area, route or part thereof and obtain
permit to render transport service to the travelling public. When that be so,
the partial exclusion does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution. [835-E]
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3362 of 1979.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.1977 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ
Petition No. 3348 of 1975.
A.S. Nambiar
and B. Parthasarthy for the Appellants.
T.V.
S.N. Chari and G. Narasimhulu for the Respondents.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. RAMASWAMY,J. This appeal by special
leave arises against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court dated October
3, 1977 in Writ
Petition No. 3343/75. The Govt. in exercise of power under s. 68-D in Chapter
IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 approved a draft scheme framed under s.
68-C through G.O.M.S. No. 753, Home (Transport) Dept. dated June, 1975,
Published in the gazette on June 4, 1975, relating to the route Anantapur to Dharmavaram
via Mamillappalli. The Scheme No. 82 of 1974 was questioned in Writ Petition
No. 3827/75 and the same was upheld by a single Judge on September 30. 1975 and
on appeal in Writ Appeal No. 80 of 1975 dated November 14, 1975, the Division Bench upheld the same. While approving the
scheme the routes, namely :
(1) Kodikonda
to Anantapur via Dharmavaram,
(2) Bukkapatnam
to Anantapur via Dharmavaram,
(3)
Interstate route Virechal to Dharmavaram via Anantapur,
(4) Anantapur
to Puttaparti via Dharmavaram to the extent indicated in the note there under were
exempted from the scheme. Thereby the partial exemption of these routes from
the approved scheme stood upheld. Thereafter the two respondents filed the writ
petition challenging the self same scheme contending that the non-exemption of
the routes i.e. Kalyandrug to Pernapalli via Dharamavaram and Anantapur to Perur
via Dharmavaram offend Act, 14 of the Constitution. The High Court upheld the
contention and held that their exclusion is discriminatory. Accordingly the
High Court directed that the case "worth 833 consideration in the case of
exempted routes". The Govt. was directed to consider their case and to
pass appropriate orders to accord exemption from the scheme. Questioning the
correctness of the judgment, this appeal has been filed.
Under
s. 68-C, where the State Transport Undertaking is of the opinion that for the
purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly
coordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that
the road "transport services" in general or any particular class of
such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run
and operated by the State Transport Undertaking, "Whether to the
exclusion, complete or partial", of other persons or otherwise, the State
Transport Undertaking may prepare a scheme giving particulars of the nature of
the service proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered
and such other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed, and shall
cause every such scheme to be published in the Official Gazette and also in
such other manner as the State Government may direct. The draft scheme
accordingly was prepared on the above routes and was published.
Objections
had been filed. In exercise of the power under sub-s. 2 of s. 68-D the State
Govt. after considering the objections and giving opportunity to the objectors
and the representatives and also of the State Transport Undertaking approved
the scheme and excluded the aforesaid four routes.
AS
stated earlier, the scheme was upheld by the High Court and became final. The
question emerges whether the non- exclusion of two transport operators, the
respondents herein, offends Act, 14.
The
contention of Sri Narsamhulu, the learned counsel for the operators, is that
the State Govt. having exempted four routes from the scheme, the respondents
too are entitled to parity of treatment and the denial offends their right to
equality guaranteed under Art.14 of the Constitution. We find difficult to give
our acceptance to this contention. It is true, as disclosed in the counter
affidavit filed by the State Govt. in the writ petition, before the High Court
that inadequate transport facilities prevailing on those four routes and
density of the population that need transport service by the private operators
induced the Govt. to give exemption and that the respondents also may be
situated in the similar circumstances. But by the very language of s.68-C whose
constitutional validity can no longer be questioned, and was not in fact
questioned, gives 834 power to the S.T.U. to exclude the private operators
completely or partially from an area or route or part thereof in the draft
scheme and given exclusive power to offer transport service in that area or
route or part thereof. On approval the scheme has the effect of excluding the
private operators from the field. The statute itself gives power to the State
to exercise discretion for formulating a scheme for an area or route or part
thereof and necessarily has the effect of excluding the existing or potential
private operators from the field to render transport service in that partially
prohibited area etc.
while
retaining similar private operators in other area, route or part thereof. The
exclusion completely or partially is allowable under the statute itself and is
writ large. The discretion need not necessarily be discriminatory. Sec. 68-C
left the choice to the S.T.U. and so discrimination in that sense is
discernible from s. 68C which itself authorises the S.T.U., based on factual
matrix, eliminate in its choice of a partial exclusion of private operators in
an area or route or part thereof. Opportunity has been given to an affected party to file his or their objections and
of a right of hearing before the State Govt. approved of the draft scheme and
publication thereof in the gazette. The exercise of discretion by the S.T.U. in
its selective application of partial prohibition is controlled and regulated by
the statute in Ss. 68D and 68E of the Act. In Ram Nath Verma v. State of
Rajasthan, [1963] 2 SCR 152 at 160 one of the contentions raised was that out
of five routes which were partially overlapping, three routes have been taken
over. Permits of the existing objectors has been cancelled with respect to the
overlapping part of the routes while in other two routes, the objectors were
allowed to ply even on the overlapping part but they had been forbidden to pick
up passengers on the overlapping part for a destination within the overlapping
part. This latter method was adopted to make the permits ineffective for the
overlapping part.
The
contention of the aggrieved persons was that they were discriminated. This
Court held thus:
"We
are of the opinion that there is no force in it.
Under
s.68C, it is open to frame a scheme in which there is a partial exclusion of
private operators. Making the permits ineffective for the overlapping part only
amounts to partial exclusion of the private operators from that route. In the
circumstances an order making the permit ineffective for the overlapping part
would be justified under s. 68C". Giving primacy to the contention of
violation of Art. 14 would be fraught with insidious effects of upsetting the
very scheme itself, since anyone of the existing or potential 835 operators
would always contend that he too is similarly situated with that of the
exempted operators of other area, route or part thereof and unequal treatment
has been meted out in the grant of permit to offer transport service offending
his right under Art. 14. It is true that sub-s.2 of s68E, as stated by Shri Narsamhulu,
that despite the approval of the scheme under sub-s.2 of s. 68-D, the State
Govt. may, at any time, if it considers necessary in the public interest so to
do, modify any scheme published under s. 3 of s. 68-D of the Act after
following the procedure prescribed therein. The exercise of that power would be
de hors the approval granted under sub.s.2 of s. 68-D of the Act and published
under sub-s.3 of s. 68-D. The conditions precedent therein are the Govt. must
objectively come to a finding that there exists necessity in public interest
and that the approved scheme needs modification and that the Govt. considers
that such necessity to be imperative to modify the scheme. The Govt. thereafter
should follow the procedure prescribed under sub-s. 2 of s. 68-E as if it is a
new scheme and pass appropriate orders in that regard. That too it would be
only either on the initiative of the S.T.U. or on an application or
representations by the general public of the necessity, in public interest, to
modify the scheme approved under sub-s. 2 of s. 68-D of that Act. It is not at
the behest of the erstwhile holders of the permit, who have been completely or
partially frozen to obtain permit afresh or intending fresh applications in
this behalf. It is now settled law that even on a partial overlapping approved
scheme private operators have been totally prohibited to have corridor,
shelters and could no longer enter into the frozen area, route or part thereof
and obtain permit to render transport service to the travelling public. When
that be so, the partial exclusion does not offend Art. 14 of the Constitution.
In fact the respondents did not question the validity of the scheme. Thus
considered the approach and the reasoning of the High Court are clearly
illegal. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court
is set aside. The writ petition stands dismissed. Rule nisi discharged. But in
the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal allowed.
Back