Case: A. Vishwanath Rao Vs. State of Mysore &amp; Others

contention of the appellants that in the draft scheme the maximum number of vehicles and daily services was specified and not the minimum, but in the final scheme approved under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act there was specification of the minimum number of vehicles and daily services in respect of the route in question. The approved scheme stated that the maximum number of vehicles was 18 and the minimum was 1. It was also stated that the maximum number of daily services was 10 and the minimum was 3. It was maintained on behalf of the appellants that by prescribing the maximum and minimum number of vehicles and daily services and by permitting such a great disparity between the maximum and minimum number of vehicles and daily services there was a virtual modification of the draft scheme and the procedure prescribed by S 68-E of the Motor Vehicles Act should have been followed. In our opinion, there is no justification for this argument. It is true that in 13 H. Aswathanarayan Singh v. State of Mysore. (1966 1 SCR 87 = (AIR 1965 SC 1848 ),. it was pointed out by this Court that is the proportion which the minimum bears to the maximum is so great. and the gap between the two. is so wide as to make the prescription of the maximum and the minimum amount to a fraud on Sections 68-C and 68-E. the. scheme will stand vitiated.But at the same time it was explained that it was not possible to lay down specifically at what stage the fixing of minimum and maximum would turn into fraud; but it is only when the gap between the minimum and maximum is so great that it amounts to fraud on the Act that it will be open to a court to hold that the scheme is not in compliance with Section 68-C and is hit by Section 68-E. The gap between the minimum and maximum would depend upon a number of factors, particularly on the variation in the demand for transport at different seasons of the year.At page 97 of the Report, Wanchoo, J., as he then was, speaking for the Court, observed as follows :"There is no doubt that though fixing of minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips with respect to each reuse is permissible under Section 68-C and would not be hit by Section 68-E. the proportion between the minimum and maximum should not be so great as to make the fixing of minimum and maximum a fraud on Sections 68-C and 68-E of the Act. It is not possible to lay down specifically at what stage the fixing of minimum and maximum would turn into fraud: but it is only when the gap between the minimum and maximum is so great that it amounts to fraud on the Act that it will be open to a court to hold that the scheme is not in compliance with Section 68-C and is hit by Section 68-E. The gap between the minimum and maximum would depend upon a number of factors, particularly on the variation in the demand for transport at different seasons of the year. Even so if the approved scheme were to fix minimum and maximum with very wide disparity between the two, it may be possible for the court to hold after examining the facts of the case that such fixation is not in accordance with Sec. 68-C and is a fraud on Section 88-E. But, with respect, it seems to us that a variation in minimum and maximum from 6 to 12 or 5 to 9 can hardly be of such an order as to amount to fraud on the Act. The observations with respect to fixing of minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips in the scheme made in Rowjees case, (1964) 6 SCR 330 = (AIR l964 SC 962) must therefore be treated as obiter as in that case they did not require determination. In the present case the gap is not of such a wide nature." In the present case, the distance between Yadgir and Narayanapet is a short distance of twenty-eight miles and the order of the Chief Minister shows that there was seasonal variation of traffic density and during marriage and other seasons it was necessary to operate extra services. There was also variation on account of auspicious and inauspicious days. The scheme had to provide for operating extra services during Jathras, Car festivals and other occasions like Dasara fair at Mysore, Ulvi fair at Ulvi, Shivrathri fair at Gokarn etc.It was felt by the Chief Minister that the scheme will have to be sufficiently flexible to enable the State Transport Undertaking to adjust its services and vehicles to cater to Shandy or weekly Bazar traffic to various places. In the context of the particular facts of this case we are of opinion that the gap between the fixation of minimum and the maximum number of vehicles and of daily services is not so great as to amount to a fraud on Sections 68-C and 68-E of the Motor Vehicles Act. We accordingly reject the argument of the appellants on this aspect of the case. 6. Lastly, it was contended that the approved scheme violated Article 14 of the Constitution as there was a complete exclusion of the private operators on the portion of the route located in the Mysore State while permitting those who are plying their vehicles on the portion of the route lying in Andhra Pradesh State. We do not consider there is any substance in this argument. It is manifest that operators plying in the State of Mysore and those plying in the State of Andhra Pradesh constitute two different classes of persons and therefore no question of discrimination can arise if there is complete exclusion of the operators within the State of Mysore and if there is relaxation with regard to those operating in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 0

Reasoning from the judgment:
0[ds]4. On behalf of the appellants it was contended, in the first place, that the provisions of Section 20 ofthe Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 were not complied with and the final scheme published by respondent No 1 was ultra vires.We are unable to accept this argument as correct. It is not necessary to examine, in this case, whether there is any inconsistency between the provisions of Section 20 ofthe Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 and the proviso to Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also not necessary to express any opinion as to whether the requirements of Section 20 of the Road Transport Corporations Act should be complied with even in the case of a scheme relating to inter-State route to which the Central Government has accorded approval, under the proviso to Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. We shall assume in favour of the appellants that the requirements of Section 20 of the Road Transport Corporations Act should also be followed in a case where the Central Government has given sanction under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. Even upon that assumption we hold that there has been sufficient compliance with the requirements of Section 20 of the Road Transport Corporations Act in the present case. It is not disputed that the concurrence of the State of Andhra Pradesh was secured for the final scheme and the Government of the State of Mysore had also accorded its approval to it. In these circumstances the omission of respondent No. 1 to make the scheme in the precise manner in which Section 20 of the Road Transport Corporations Act directs the preparation of the scheme is a mere irregularity which cannot lead to the nullification of the final scheme publisher on July 16, 19646. Lastly, it was contended that the approved scheme violated Article 14 of the Constitution as there was a complete exclusion of the private operators on the portion of the route located in the Mysore State while permitting those who are plying their vehicles on the portion of the route lying in Andhra Pradesh State. We do not consider there is any substance in this argument. It is manifest that operators plying in the State of Mysore and those plying in the State of Andhra Pradesh constitute two different classes of persons and therefore no question of discrimination can arise if there is complete exclusion of the operators within the State of Mysore and if there is relaxation with regard to those operating in the State of Andhra Pradesh.