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

The appeal arises in the following circumstancesThe appellant herein published a draft scheme relating to the route Triupati to Kalahasti via Renigunta, Yerped which is ane 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 followsThe 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 :i and2. Respondent 1, G. T. Venkataswamy Reddy, who is operating ane 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 followsscheme shall not affect(4) The existing permit holders of stage carriages on thee routes overlapping the notified route, subject to the condition that they shall not pick up or set downe 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 thee portion of the route of respondent 1 but in the approved scheme the aforesaid clause (4) permitted the permit holders of stage carriages on thee routes overlapping the notified route to run the route subject to the aforesaid "corridor restriction", namelysubject to the condition that they shall not pick up or set downe 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) 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 followsThe schemeshall 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 routesi and5. 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 downe 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 Note6. 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

Reasoning:
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