Case: B. H. Aswathanarayan Singh And Others Vs. State Of Mysore And Others

merely because there was some defect in the particulars supplied in the draft scheme. We may in this connection refer to the case of Dosa Satyanarayanamurthy (1961) 1 SCR 642 : (AIR 1961 SC 82 ) where also there was a defect in the draft scheme inasmuch as in certain cases the number of vehicles to be operated on each route was not specified and one number was mentioned against many routes which were bracketed. An objection was taken with regard to this matter and the scheme was modified accordingly. This Court upheld the modified Scheme and the same principle in our opinion applies to the present case where only the maximum was mentioned in the draft scheme and not the minimum. We do not think that there was any violation of principles of natural justice because objection was taken to the impropriety of only indicating a maximum in the scheme and that objection has been met by the State Government by modifying the scheme and including a minimum also. The contention therefore on this head must fail.16. We shall now consider the other points raised on behalf of the appellants. It is urged that cls. (e) and (f) of R. 3 of the 1960Rules are bad as they provide only for a maximum number of vehicles and trips. It is further urged that R. 12 of the 1960-Rules is bad inasmuch as it allows an Undertaking to vary the frequency of services operated on any of the notified routes or which the notified area without exceeding the maximum number of vehicles or services having regard to the traffic needs during any period. We are of opinion that it is unnecessary to consider the validity of these rules in view of the fact that they no longer exist. We should however guard ourselves by saying that we should not be understood as accepting the view of the High Court which has upheld the validity of these rules.17. Then it is urged that cls. (e) and (f) of R. 3 of the 1963-Rules as well as R. 12 thereof are bad. Clauses (e) and (f) of R. 3 provide for the specification of maximum and minimum number of vehicles and trips in the scheme. We have already considered this question and have held that it is permissible to specify the maximum and minimum number of vehicles and trips under S. 68-C. Rule 3(e) and (f) is in accordance with what we have held above and is therefore valid. Rule12 lays down that where the services are run and operated to the complete exclusion of other persons by the Undertaking, it may, in the interest of the public, having regard to the traffic needs during any period vary the frequency of services operated on any of the notified routes or within any notified area without exceeding the maximum number of vehicles of services as enumerated in the approved scheme. This rule is ancillary to R. 3(e) and (f) and comes into operation only where services are run to the total exclusion of other persons. In such a case this rule gives power to the Undertaking to vary the frequency of services up to the maximum limit. We are of opinion that this rule should be read as giving power to the Undertaking to vary the frequency of services within the minimum and maximum prescribed in the scheme. Read as such, we see no invalidity in this rule.18. Then it is urged that the scheme cannot be deemed to have been approved as it relates to inter-State routes and the approval of the Central Government has not been taken as required under the proviso to S. 68-D(3). We are of opinion that there is no substance on this contention. An inter-State route is one in which one of the termini is in one State and the other in another State. In the present case both the termini are in one State. So it does not deal with inter-State routes at all. It is urged that part of the scheme were roads which continue beyond the State and connect various points in the State of Mysore with other States. Even if that is so that does not make the scheme one connected with inter-State routes, for a road is different from a route. For example, the Grand Trunk Road runs from Calcutta to Amritsar and passes through many States. But any portion of it within a State or even with a District or a sub-division can be a route for purposes of stage carriages or goods vehicles. That would not make such a route a part of an inter-State route even though it lies on a road which runs through many States. The criterion is to see whether the two termini of the route are in the same State or not. If they are in the same State, the route is not an inter-State route and the proviso to S.68-D(3) would not be applicable. The termini in the present case being within the State of Mysore, the scheme does not deal with inter-State routes at all, and the contention on this head must be rejected.19. Lastly it is urged that the Chief Minister was not competent to hear the objections under S: 68-D and that this should have been done by the Minister in-charge of transport. The authority under S.68-D to hear objections is the, State Government. As the State Government is not a living person, some living person must hear the Objections. Rule 8 provides that the Chief Minister shall be the authority to hear and decide the objections. We fail to see why, if according to the appellants the Minister in-charge of transport can hear the objections, the Chief Minister cannot do so when the rule framed by the Government under the Act nominates the Chief Minister as the authority to hear the objections on behalf of the State Government. There is no force in this objection and it is hereby rejected.20.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]. There is no difficulty as to the meaning of the words "area or route proposed to be covered" and the draft scheme did provide for the area or routes to beare however of opinion that there is no substantial difference between the class of services which has been referred earlier in the section and the nature of services proposed to be rendered which is referred in the later part of the section, Road transport service as defined in S. 68-A can be of three kinds, namely - (i) passenger service (ii) goods services, and (iii) mixed goods and passenger service. Further passenger and goods services themselves could be of different types, as for examples, stage carriages [see S. 2(29)][ goods vehicles [see S.2(8)], contract carriages [see S.2(3)], invalid carriages [see S.2(10)], and motor cabs [see S. 2(15)]. Therefore, when Section 68-C speaks of nature of services to be rendered it refers to these classes of motor vehicles for carrying passengers or goods and the scheme has to indicate which class of service is to be taken over. It may be added that one of the meanings of the word "nature" given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is "kind, sort, class", and it is this meaning which is intended by the use of this word in this part of thesee no difficulty in holding that the details of the nature of services proposed to be rendered may not only be in the form of a precise number of vehicles and trips but also in the form of minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips on each route. Furnishing of minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips for each route would also in our opinion satisfy the requirement that particulars should be furnished of the services proposed to be rendered. Further the indication of minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips for each route would give the necessary information to enable the objectors to oppose the scheme even with reference to the adequacy of the services proposed to be rendered. We do not think that the appellants are right in submitting that when the word "particulars" is used in this part of the section, it can only be satisfied if the exact number of vehicles and trips for each route is specified and that there is no other way of satisfying the requirement implicit in the use of the word "particulars". As we have already said the word "particulars" has been used in its ordinary sense and means details and the indication of the minimum and maximum number of trips and vehicles would also in our opinion be sufficient to give the objectors the necessary information to enable them to object with reference to the conditions precedent provided in the section for framing a scheme. It is obvious that the section itself has provided the absolute minimum information which must be given in the scheme to enable to objectors to object and that minimum consists of details with respect to the class of service proposed to be rendered and the area or route proposed to be covered. Other particulars are left to be prescribed by the rules as they are of the same importance as the details with respect to class of service to be rendered and the area or route to be covered. We are therefore of opinion that if the scheme indicates both minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips on each route it will be in accordance with the requirements of S.order to find out what particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered have to be given under S.68-C it would be permissible and legitimate to refer to these provisions in Ss. 46 and 48. They indicate that a provision in the scheme of minimum and maximum number of trips per day would be sufficient in order that necessary information may be available to objectors to make their objections with respect to the adequacy etc. of the services proposed to be rendered. But quite apart from this consideration we see no reason to hold that the word "particulars as used in S. 68-C necessarily refers only to the precise number of vehicles and trips for each route and cannot take in the minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips for eachcannot accept the argument that provision of a minimum and maximum number in the scheme would be hit by Section 68-E of the Act which provides for cancellation or modification of an approved scheme, for Section 68-E comes into play after the scheme has been approved under S. 68-D. Nor can the provision of flexibility by indicating the minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips be said to be a device to get round S. 68-E, which deals with a situation after the scheme has been approved. But where a scheme itself provides for minimum and maximum number of trips and vehicles and has been approved, it cannot be said that such approval is meant to override S.68-E, for even such an approved scheme may require radical alteration after some years when transport needs may have radically changed and in such cases action under S. 68-E would be necessary. But this provision of flexibility providing minimum and maximum number in a scheme cannot per se be said to be an attempt to get round S. 68-E.We are therefore of opinion that specifying of both minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips in the scheme under challenge is also in accordance with the provisions of S. 68-C and is not hit by S. 68-E. The contention of the appellants under this head is thereforedo not think that there was any violation of principles of natural justice because objection was taken to the impropriety of only indicating a maximum in the scheme and that objection has been met by the State Government by modifying the scheme and including a minimum also. The contention therefore on this head must fail.We have already considered this question and have held that it is permissible to specify the maximum and minimum number of vehicles and trips under S. 68-C. Rule 3(e) and (f) is in accordance with what we have held above and is therefore valid. Rule12 lays down that where the services are run and operated to the complete exclusion of other persons by the Undertaking, it may, in the interest of the public, having regard to the traffic needs during any period vary the frequency of services operated on any of the notified routes or within any notified area without exceeding the maximum number of vehicles of services as enumerated in the approved scheme. This rule is ancillary to R. 3(e) and (f) and comes into operation only where services are run to the total exclusion of other persons. In such a case this rule gives power to the Undertaking to vary the frequency of services up to the maximum limit. We are of opinion that this rule should be read as giving power to the Undertaking to vary the frequency of services within the minimum and maximum prescribed in the scheme. Read as such, we see no invalidity in thisthe present case both the termini are in one State. So it does not deal with inter-State routes at all. It is urged that part of the scheme were roads which continue beyond the State and connect various points in the State of Mysore with other States. Even if that is so that does not make the scheme one connected with inter-State routes, for a road is different from a route. For example, the Grand Trunk Road runs from Calcutta to Amritsar and passes through many States. But any portion of it within a State or even with a District or a sub-division can be a route for purposes of stage carriages or goods vehicles. That would not make such a route a part of an inter-State route even though it lies on a road which runs through many States. The criterion is to see whether the two termini of the route are in the same State or not. If they are in the same State, the route is not an inter-State route and the proviso to S.68-D(3) would not be applicable. The termini in the present case being within the State of Mysore, the scheme does not deal with inter-State routes at all, and the contention on this head must befail to see why, if according to the appellants the Minister in-charge of transport can hear the objections, the Chief Minister cannot do so when the rule framed by the Government under the Act nominates the Chief Minister as the authority to hear the objections on behalf of the State Government. There is no force in this objection and it is hereby rejected.