Case: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad Vs. G. T. Venkataswamy Reddy and Others

YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated June 30, 1976 where by the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed Writ Appeal No. 684 of 1974 filed by the appellant herein against the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 7581 of 1973 dated March 15, 1974. The appeal arises in the following circumstances. The appellant herein published a draft scheme relating to the route Triupati to Kalahasti via Renigunta, Yerped which is an intra-State route as per the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated November 15, 1972. The said scheme envisaged the exclusion of the other operators on the proposed route except to the extent saved by the Note appended to the scheme. The Note appended to the draft scheme was as follows "Note. - The scheme shall not affect - (1) the other State Transport Undertakings (2) holders of stage carriage permits in respect of portions of the route, and (3) the holders of stage carriage permits in respect of the routes : Srisailam-Tirupati and Triupati-Vijayawada." * 2. Respondent 1, G. T. Venkataswamy Reddy, who is operating an inter-State stage carriage service from Bangalore to Kalahasti including the nationalised portion Triupati to Kalahasti, being aggrieved by the draft scheme, filed objections thereto. After hearing the interested objectors including the respondent 1 the draft scheme was approved with some modifications and the relevant modification introduced by way of clause (4) was as follows "The scheme shall not affect - (4) The existing permit holders of stage carriages on the inter-Sate routes overlapping the notified route, subject to the condition that they shall not pick up or set down intra-State passengers on the notified route." * 3. As per the notified scheme the route permit of respondent 1 was liable to be curtailed in law between Tirupati to Kalahasti which is a part of the inter-State portion of the route of respondent 1 but in the approved scheme the aforesaid clause (4) permitted the permit holders of stage carriages on the inter-State routes overlapping the notified route to run the route subject to the aforesaid "corridor restriction", namely - subject to the condition that they shall not pick up or set down intra-State passengers on the notified route. The final notification being No. 1505 was issued on November 17, 1973 4. The respondent 1 thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh being Writ Petition No. 7581 of 1973 inter alia contending amongst others that the modification as per clause (4) to the approved scheme is outside the draft scheme and is also outside the competence of the State Government under Section 68-D(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He also took the plea that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India in view of clauses (1) to (3) of the Note to the approved scheme in comparison to clause (4) of the Note appended to the approved scheme. Clauses (1) to (3) of the Note to the approved scheme were as follows "Note. - The scheme shall not affect - (1) the holders of stage carriage permits in respect of portions of the route (2) The other State Transport Undertakings, and (3) the holders of stage carriage permits in respect of routes Srisailam-Tirupati and Triupati-Vijayawada." * 5. The writ petition was contested by the appellant. The learned Single Judge, however, while following an earlier Single Bench judgment passed in R. Maheshwari (Mrs.) v. State of A. P. (Writ Petition Nos. 7327 of 1973 etc., decided on January 25, 1974) quashed a portion of the condition as contained in clause (4) of the Note to the approved scheme viz. that respondent 1 shall not pick up or set down intra-State passengers on the notified route. It was further held by the High Court in the said judgment that the notified scheme was opposed to the principles of natural justice without affording an opportunity to the objectors before approving the scheme by introducing clause (4) to the Note. 6. The appellant being aggrieved with the judgment of the Single Bench took up the matter in appeal being Writ Appeal No. 684 of 1974 and the Division Bench by the impugned order dated June 30, 1976, following an earlier decision of the Division Bench of the same High Court reported as A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad v. R. Maheshwari (Mrs.) ((1975) 2 An WR 362 : 1976 AIR(SC) 232) dismissed the appeal of the appellant herein. This decision of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 374 of 1974 dated July 15, 1975 is none other than against the Single Bench decision rendered in R. Maheshwari (Mrs.) v. State of A. P. (Writ Petition Nos. 7327 of 1973 etc., decided on January 25, 1974) mentioned earlier. 7. It appears that the learned Judges of the Division Bench who decided the case of R. Maheshwari ((1975) 2 An WR 362 : 1976 AIR(SC) 232) were kept ignorant of an earlier Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in M. Gangappa v. Government of A. P. 1975 AIR(AP) 138 : 1974 ILR(AP) 639) decided on October 11, 1973. The earlier Division Bench had taken the view that if the notified route is entirely within a single State, the scheme does not relate to an inter-State route. So, the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act has no application. It was further held thus. "It is thus plain that the prior approval of the Central Government was necessary only if a particular scheme covers the route which is partly in one State and partly in another State but not otherwise. There is no prohibition for the buses operating in the inter-State route taking passengers from one terminus to the other terminus, the only objection being for picking up and setting down of passengers on the intermediate stages on the notified route within this State." * 8. It was also held that "that is the type of order passed in that case. Prior approval of the Central Government in such cases was not necessary" 9. It appears from the facts stated in paragraph 4 of the judgment in the case of R. Maheshwari that respondent 1 therein was the proprietress of a transport company and was operating two inter-State stage carriage permits. One stage carriage was on the route Tirupati to Bangalore in Karnataka via Chittoor and Palmaner and the other between Tirupati and Veloor (Tamil Nadu) via Chittoor. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation had published a scheme on November 15, 1972 with regard to the route from Tirupati to Chittoor proposing to run road transport services to the complete exclusion of private operators. In this way the draft scheme excluded the private operators on an inter-State route completely from the overlapping portion of the notified route but in the approved scheme there was a Note in the present case. The learned Judges while passing the present impugned order followed this later decision of the Division Bench in the aforesaid case of R. Maheshwari ((1975) 2 An WR 362 : 1976 AIR(SC) 232). 10. It will be noticed that in the case of R. Maheshwari ((1975) 2 An WR 362 : 1976 AIR(SC) 232). the question of views of the draft scheme or approved scheme viz-a-viz Article 14 of the Constitution of India was neither raised nor decided. 11. The late Division Bench of the High Court in the case of R. Maheshwari ((1975) 2 An WR 362 : 1976 AIR(SC) 232). took the view that the "corridor restrictions" contained in clause (4) of the Note is violative of proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act as the said proviso envisaged that the approved scheme under Section 68-D may relate to an inter-State route, but before it could become an approved scheme, it must be published in the Official Gazette with the previous approval of the Central Government, though both the termini of the notified route are in Andhra Pradesh. The Division Bench was also of the view that the principles of natural justice have been violated inasmuch as that the Note appeared only in the approved scheme but did not appear in the draft scheme forgetting that the draft scheme provided a complete exclusion of the private operators on the notified route subject to the Note appended thereto. 12. In S. Abdul Khader Saheb v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore ( 1973 (1) SCC 357 : 1973 (2) SCR 925 ) the Supreme Court held that in that case there was no scheme of nationalisation relating to the inter-State route from Bellary to Manthralaya and the Bellary scheme was confined only to the intra-State routes, one of which is the Bellary-Chintakunta route, whose termini were within the State. That could be nationalised by the State of Mysore under the provisions of Section 68-D even though that portion overlaps the inter-State route from Bellary to Manthralaya. The Supreme Court also took the view that since the scheme also did not deal with an inter-State route from Bellary to Manthralaya. The Supreme Court also took the view that since the scheme also did not deal with an inter-State route at all no question of the applicability of the proviso of sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act, which requires the previous approval of the Central Government arises. The same view was followed by this Court in K. Venkamma v. Government of A. P. ( 1977 (3) SCC 36 : 1977 (3) SCR 562 ) Krishna Iyer, J. noticed the case of Abdul Khader Saheb ( 1973 (1) SCC 357 : 1973 (2) SCR 925 ) in the following words : (SCC pp. 39-40, para 7). "In Abdul Khader Saheb case ( 1973 (1) SCC 357 : 1973 (2) SCR 925 ) a totally untenable submission was put forward and unhesitatingly turned down that if the nationalised route fell within a single State it should nevertheless be regarded as inter-State route for some mystical reason, viz., that it overlaps a longer route which is admittedly an inter-State route. It is elementary that there can be inter-State routes which run into or through more than one State. A part of that long route may itself be a separate route and may fall wholly within a single State in which case the former may be inter-State while the latter will be an intra-State route. In Abdul Khader case ( 1973 (1) SCC 357 : 1973 (2) SCR 925 ) the Court observed... The Bellary scheme provides for nationalisation of an intra-State route and not an inter-State route and the aforesaid provision can have no applicability If part of the scheme covers routes which continue beyond the State and connect various points in the State of Mysore with those in other State it does not make the scheme one connected with inter-State route. It is sought to be argued from this that even if Bellary-Chintakunta route which is known as Item 34 in Bellary Scheme has been nationalised it does not make the scheme one connected with inter-State route. Stress has been laid on the example given that the Grand Trunk Road runs from Calcutta to Amritsar and passes through any States and any portion of it within a State can be a route for purposes of stage carriage but that would not make such a route part of an inter-State route even though it lies on the road which runs through many States The above argument can possibly have no validity so far as the present case is concerned. The scheme which was under consideration in the decision relied upon was in respect of an intra-State route. It appears to have been argued that as the scheme was concerned with an inter-State route the approval of the Central Government was necessary as required under the proviso to Section 68-D(3) of the Act. This Court held that since the termini were within the State of Mysore the scheme did not deal with an inter-State route at all and no question arose of the applicability of the proviso to Section 68-D(3). In the present case there is no scheme of nationalisation relating to the intra-State route from Bellary to Manthralaya. The Bellary Scheme is confined to the intra-State routes, one of those being the Bellary-Chintakunta route. It may be that portion overlaps the intra-State route from Bellary to Manthralaya but so long as it is an intra-State route it could be nationalised by the State of Mysore under the provisions of Section 68-D.No further comment is necessary." 13. The learned Judges did not think it necessary to make even a comment as to the applicability of the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act to a notified route which was purely an intra-State route. The matter again came before a Constitutional Bench of this Court in Adarsh Travels Bus Service v. State of U. P. ( 1985 (4) SCC 557 : 1985 (S3) SCR 661) The appellants in that matter were holders of stage carriage permits over certain intra-State roues as well as inter-State routes. Parts of the routes on which they were plying their stage carriages over the entire route by imposing "corridor restrictions" i.e. not picking up or setting down any passengers at any point on the nationalised part of the routes. In the appeals before the Supreme Court the question was : where a route is nationalised under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 whether a private operator with a permit to ply a stage carriage over another route but 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 set down passengers on the overlapping part of the route. Before the Supreme Court on behalf of the operators it was contended that a "route" according to the definition in Section 2(28-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 meant a line drawn between two termini and if a portion of it had been nationalised, it would have no effect whatsoever on the permits to play stage carriages on the route, and that the complete exclusion of private operators from the common sector would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and also ultra vires Section 68-D of the Act. It was further contended that the provisions of Chapter IV and Chapter IV-A of the Act must be construed in such a manner as to allow permit holders to ply their stage carriages notwithstanding that parts of their route are also parts of notified routes. It was held thus : (SCR headnote pp. 662, 664 : SCC pp. 572 and 566-7, paras 17 and 7) "None of the schemes contains any saving clause in favour of operators plying or wanting to play stage carriages on common sectors. However, there is invariably a clause in the scheme to the effect that no person other than the State Government Undertaking will be permitted to provide road transport services on the routes specified in the scheme. In view of this provision in the scheme there is a total prohibition of private operators from plying stage carriages on the whole or part of the notified routes. The appellants cannot therefore contend that they can ply their vehicles on the notified routes or part of the notified routes A careful and diligent perusal of Sections 68-C, 68-D (3) and 68-FF in the light of the definition of the expression route in Section 2(28-A) appears to make it manifestly clear that once a scheme is published under Section 68-D in relation to any area or route or portion thereof, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial of other person or otherwise, no person other than the State Transport Undertaking may operate on the notified area or notified route except as provided in the scheme itself. A necessary consequence of these provisions is that no private operator can operate his vehicles on any part or portion of a notified area or notified route unless authorised so to do by the terms of the scheme itself. He may not operate on any part or portion of the notified route or area on the mere ground that the permit as originally granted to him covered the notified route." * 14. It will be noticed that in the present draft scheme there was a total exclusion of all operators except to the extend saved by the Note appended to the scheme. That Note did not give any chance to private operators of inter-State route to ply on the overlapping part of the route. After hearing the objections filed by respondent 1, clause (4) of the Note, which partially lifted the total embargo proposed to be imposed in the draft scheme, was introduced which permitted plying subject to the "corridor restrictions". Sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act along with its proviso reads as follows "68-D. Objection to the scheme. - (1) * * * (2) * * * (3) The scheme as approved or modified under sub-section (2) shall then be published in the Official Gazette by the State Government and the same shall thereupon become final and shall be called the approved scheme and the area or route to which it relates shall be called the notified area or notified route Provided that no such scheme which relates to any inter-State route shall be deemed to be an approved scheme unless it has been published in the Official Gazette with the previous approval of the Central Government." * 15. It is clear from the language of sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act that the approved scheme is a scheme as published under Section 68-D (3) of the Act and its route is called the "notified route" and unless such scheme itself i.e. draft scheme itself relates to any inter-State route, the condition of the proviso of taking prior Central Governments approval will not arise and the same view was taken by this Court in the aforesaid cases. 16. On behalf of the respondent plea was again argued that the condition contained in clause (4) of the Note regarding the "corridor restrictions" did not find place in the draft scheme and even though they had filed objections and they had been heard, yet the principles of natural justice were violated. It is suffice to say that the draft scheme totally excluded the private operators on the notified route and only after hearing respondent 1 in support of his objections that the prohibition was relaxed which was envisaged in the draft scheme. In the circumstances it cannot be said that instead of total prohibition the embargo is lifted partially under the approved scheme still the principles of natural justice have been violated. 17. Another argument urged was discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the scheme permits certain private operators in certain overlapping routes being given free permission to operate whereas respondent 1 who operates inter-State stage carriage service is being subject to "corridor restrictions". This point does not appear to have been urged either before the Single Bench or before the Division Bench. However, it is not pointed out how the various routes are similar to each other. A reasonable classification is always permissible. It is the interest of the passengers which has to be looked into in nationalisation of the routes and not necessarily the interest of the private operators. It is clear from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants before the High Court that no case of Article 14 of the Constitution was made out.

Decision:
1[ds]15. It is clear from the language ofn (3) of SectionD of the Act that the approved scheme is a scheme as published under SectionD (3) of the Act and its route is called the "notified route" and unless such scheme itself i.e. draft scheme itself relates to anye route, the condition of the proviso of taking prior Central Governments approval will not arise and the same view was taken by this Court in the aforesaid cases16. On behalf of the respondent plea was again argued that the condition contained in clause (4) of the Note regarding the "corridor restrictions" did not find place in the draft scheme and even though they had filed objections and they had been heard, yet the principles of natural justice were violated. It is suffice to say that the draft scheme totally excluded the private operators on the notified route and only after hearing respondent 1 in support of his objections that the prohibition was relaxed which was envisaged in the draft scheme. In the circumstances it cannot be said that instead of total prohibition the embargo is lifted partially under the approved scheme still the principles of natural justice have been violated17. Another argument urged was discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the scheme permits certain private operators in certain overlapping routes being given free permission to operate whereas respondent 1 who operatese stage carriage service is being subject to "corridor restrictions". This point does not appear to have been urged either before the Single Bench or before the Division Bench. However, it is not pointed out how the various routes are similar to each other. A reasonable classification is always permissible. It is the interest of the passengers which has to be looked into in nationalisation of the routes and not necessarily the interest of the private operators. It is clear from thet filed on behalf of the appellants before the High Court that no case of Article 14 of the Constitution was made out