Case: C.P. Sikh Regular Motor Service Etc Vs. The State Of Maharashtra &amp; Others

clear that a scheme under Section 68-C can be framed only is relation to an area or route or part thereof (see Dosa Satyanarayanmurty etc. v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn., (1961) 1 SCR 642 at p. 664 = (AIR 1961 SC 82 ).15. We do not think that the word "area" occurring in Section 68-C has the same meaning as the word route in the section. When Section 68-C talks or areas or route or part thereof, it is not to be presumed that the legislature made no distinction between area and route. No doubt, a route must necessarily run over an area but, for that reason, one cannot equate an area to be route. An area simpliciter is certainly not a route. Its potentiality to become a route would not make it a route. A route is an area plus something more. At any rate, there in no justification for making an assumption that the legislature, in the context of Section 68-C did not want to make any distinction between area and route. In Dosa Satyanarayanamurthys case (1961) 1 SCR 642 at p. 664 = (AIR 1961 SC 82 ). Subba Rao, J., observed :"Under Section 68-C of the Act the scheme may be framed in respect of any area or a route or a portion of any area of a portion of a route. There is no inherent inconsistency between an area and a route. The proposed route is also an area limited to the route proposed. The scheme may as well propose to operate a transport service in respect of a new route from point A to point B and that route would certainly be an area within the meaning of Section 68-C."16. There can be no dispute that a route postulates an area. But, for that reason as we said, it is difficult to maintain that the legislature made no distinction between the two. In Section 2 (1) the definition is only of the word area. That definition does not speak of any route. By Act 56 of 1969, the legislature has defined the expression route in Section 2 (28-A).That reads :"route means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another".Certainly, the line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle is an area, but nevertheless, the two are distinct. Otherwise, the legislature would not have found it necessary to provide a separate definition clause for route.17. If, therefore, in respect of a scheme in relation to a route or routes, it is not necessary that the State Government should make a notification specifying the route or routes we fail to understand the reason why the State Government should specify the area by a notification in the gazette for framing a scheme in relation to an area. In other words, it is impossible to understand the rationale behind the distinction why when a scheme is framed in relation to an area a notification in the gazette specifying its extent is necessary and why when it is framed in relation to a route or routes a notification specifying the route or routes is not required. When Section 68-C says "where any State Transport Undertaking is of opinion that ... it is necessary in the public interest that 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", it means, in the context of the present case, that the Corporation has to form an opinion whether it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services should be nationalized in relation to any area or route. We are aware of a plausible construction of the section which would enable the corporation to form an opinion only as to the necessity in the public interest of a scheme in relation to an area specified in the notification by the State Government. But we think, it comports more with the legislative purpose to hold that the State transport undertaking is invested with the discretion to select the area in relation to which it will frame the scheme than to hold that discretion has been vested in the State Government.18. If, in forming an opinion with respect to the necessity of a scheme in relation to a route or routes the power of State transport undertaking and therefore of the corporation, is untrammelled by an outside authority like the State Government, we fail to see why it cannot form an opinion as to the necessity of a scheme in relation to any area in the State.19. As the corporation here was established for the would of the State of Maharashtra, it was within it power to form as opinion as to necessity of a scheme in relation to any area or route within the State. We hold that there is no substance in the first contention of the appellant.20. The second point urged on behalf of the appellants was that a scheme framed under Section 68-C should specify all the necessary particulars and as it did not specify the minimum and maximum number of vehicles to be put on a route as also the minimum and maximum trips in respect of each route, the scheme was invalid. The decision of this court in Aswathnarayana Singh v. State of Mysore. (1966) 1 SCR 87 at pp. 92-94 = (AIR 1965 SC 1884) was relied on in support of this contention.20. In the first place, this contention was not taken before the State Government in the objections filed by the appellants to the scheme. Quite apart from that, we think that there is no factual foundation for the contention. The approved scheme specifies the minimum and maximum number of vehicles to be put on a route as also the minimum and maximum trips in respect of each route.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]10. We are not quite sure whether the language of the definition clause is suceptible of the construction contended for by the learned Attorney General. We are inclined to think that the discretion that is vested in the State Government is only with respect to the specification of the extent of the area in the notification having regard to the requirement of the section in which the word area occurs. That discretion has nothing to do with the necessity or otherwise of a notification specifying the area. In other words, the discretion of the State Government is confined to the specification of the extent of the area, having regard to the requirement of the section where the word area occurs and not to the necessity or otherwise of the notification in the gazette specifying the area.11. Be that as it may, we do not think it necessary to resolve this question in this case, as in our view the word area occurring in Section 68-C does not, in the context, require specification by a notification in the gazette by the State Government. To put it differently, we do not think that in the context of Section 68-C the word area means an area specified by the State Government in a notification in the gazetter in accordance with the substantive part of the definition clause. The context in which the word occurs makes the application of the substantive part of the definition repugnant.If, therefore, in respect of a scheme in relation to a route or routes, it is not necessary that the State Government should make a notification specifying the route or routes we fail to understand the reason why the State Government should specify the area by a notification in the gazette for framing a scheme in relation to an area. In other words, it is impossible to understand the rationale behind the distinction why when a scheme is framed in relation to an area a notification in the gazette specifying its extent is necessary and why when it is framed in relation to a route or routes a notification specifying the route or routes is not required. When Section 68-C says "where any State Transport Undertaking is of opinion that ... it is necessary in the public interest that 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", it means, in the context of the present case, that the Corporation has to form an opinion whether it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services should be nationalized in relation to any area or route. We are aware of a plausible construction of the section which would enable the corporation to form an opinion only as to the necessity in the public interest of a scheme in relation to an area specified in the notification by the State Government. But we think, it comports more with the legislative purpose to hold that the State transport undertaking is invested with the discretion to select the area in relation to which it will frame the scheme than to hold that discretion has been vested in the State Government.18. If, in forming an opinion with respect to the necessity of a scheme in relation to a route or routes the power of State transport undertaking and therefore of the corporation, is untrammelled by an outside authority like the State Government, we fail to see why it cannot form an opinion as to the necessity of a scheme in relation to any area in the State.19. As the corporation here was established for the would of the State of Maharashtra, it was within it power to form as opinion as to necessity of a scheme in relation to any area or route within the State. We hold that there is no substance in the first contention of the appellant.