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

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 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
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