Case: C.P.C. Motor Service, Mysore Vs. State of Mysore &amp; Another

2. The appellants were running stage carriage omnibuses on 18 routes, and 14 such routes areOn September 21, 1960, the second respondent, who is the General Manager of the State Transport Undertaking, published a tentative scheme for taking over stage carriage services over 64 routes, which were shown in a schedule to the Notification, to the complete exclusion of private operators. The action was taken under Chap.of the Motor Vehicles Act, inserted by S. 62 of Act 100 of 1956. Objections were duly filed by the appellants, which were heard by the Chief Minister, who was the authority to hear the objections under the Rules, and they were disposed of by his order dated November 7, 1960. The scheme was approved with some modifications, and it was published along with the order in the Notification, to which we have already referred. The appellants, in their petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, raised many points before the High Court. The High Court, by its judgment under appeal dated January 30, 1961, dismissed the petition. Some of the grounds were considered in that judgment; but others had already been disposed of in other petitions, in which a common judgment was delivered by the High Court also on the same day in Writ Petition No. 75 of 1960. That order concerned another scheme for the Hassan District of Mysore State.3. In the appeal before us, the scheme is challenged on four grounds, Shortly stated, they are, that the modified scheme is vague, indefinite and contradictory and does not carry out the orders of the Chief Minister; that there has beenwith the mandatory requirements of Ss.of the Motor Vehicles Act; that the scheme is destructive ofwhich is the gist of efficient motor transport services; and finally, that the routes on which the appellants operated, were in any event, not affected by the monopoly on certain routes created in favour of the State Transport Undertaking.

Reasoning:
This in our opinion, is the direct result of taking over of certain routes, because if those routes are taken away, then the private operators would not be running their omnibuses on those routes, and the appropriate entry would be as shown there, "Nil. The rest of the particulars have been given in the scheme itself, including the kind of vehicles which would be run, and their seating capacity, equipment, etc. No doubt, the fares and the timings have been left out, and the State Transport Authority has been given the power to fix them. But that is a matter for the determination of the transport authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act.It is too much to expect fares and timings to be indicated in the scheme, because each route requires elaborate enquiry for fixing the fares as well as the timings of service. The scheme is not required, under the law, to deal with these matters, and we are satisfied that the omission of these details from the scheme does not militate against it.6. Similarly, the argument that the scheme is destructive ofis not valid. No doubt, the private operators cannot run in the Mysore District, but can ply their omnibuses from the border of the Mysore District on routes, which were saved to them, and there is likelihood of transhipment frombuses to private omnibuses at the border, where the routes operated by the State Transport Undertaking and the private operators bifurcate. The transhipment, by itself, would not connote a lack ofthe State Transport Undertaking may take over whole routes or whole areas or part of the routes or part of the areas, and if the scheme operates partially, some transhipment would obviously be necessary, butwould still exist, because where the State omnibuses come to a halt, the private omnibuses would take the passengers set down. In our opinion, these grounds have no validity, in view of the partial nationalisation of the routes involved in the State.In our opinion, the error lies in not properly reading the order of the Chief Minister. In the sentence, "it was contended by the Objectors that if the Mysore Government Road Transport Department was to operate certain notified routes to the complete exclusion of other operators, it would adversely affect the passenger transport system on certain portions ofct routes which are not notified", the words "which are not notified" qualify not the word "routes" but the word "portions". The direction which was given, effectuates the latter reading, which was really meant and not the former, which is urged; because the qualifying phrase "which are not notified" has been unhappily put later. It is no doubt true that the other reading is also open, and is more in accord with a grammatical construction. Where two constructions are open it is proper to read the order harmoniously with the directions, because it could not have been intended that the Chief Minister would express his opinion in one way and include a contradictory direction in another way. Indeed, the intention was to take over routes or parts of the routes lying in Mysore District and to notify them as within the exclusive operation of the State Transport Undertaking. The exclusive operation of routes within the District meant that no other omnibus belonging to a private operator could run on that sector. The direction, therefore clearly said that the route left to the private operators would be open to them beyond the borders of the District, but they were excluded from that portion of the route which lay within the District. In Civil Appeals Nos. 534 to 539 and 434 of 1961, in which we have delivered judgment today, we have explained what is meant by a route and a portion of a route, and we need not cover the same ground. In our opinion, there is no contradiction between the order of the Chief Minister and the directions included by him in the concluding part of his order. Indeed the directions carry out the order, if the order is to be read in the manner indicated byis meant by a route in the Act has been elaborately discussed by us in the other judgment deliveredThe only difference between this case and the other cases is that, whereas in the latter the notified route was only AB, here the notified route is ABCDE.10. The notification of the Government must be read in two parts. The first is that part of the notification referring to the whole of the route which is taken over, and the second part is with respect to the portion of the route lying within the District of Mysore. The portion lying within the District of Mysore has been notified separately as within the exclusive operation of the State Transport Undertaking. The natural result of it is that private operators would not be able to ply their omnibuses on that sector, and by "route" is meant, as already stated, not only the notional line but also the actual road over which the omnibuses run. We have shown in the other appeals that the scheme of the Ceylon Ordinance was different. There, the word "route" was contrasted with the word "highway". In the Motor Vehicles Act, the words used are "route or area", and it has been held by this Court that these words mean the same thing; Kondala Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1961 SC 82  .11. The scheme of the Act in S.(2) (c) (iii) also shows that the Regional Transport Authority, in giving effect to the approved scheme, may "curtail the area or route covered by the permit in so far as such permit relates to the notified area or notified route". This makes the route or area stand for the road on which the omnibuses run or portions thereof, and in view of the fact that the scheme reserved all the routes within the Mysore District to the State Transport Undertaking, even those routes which wereopen to the private operators would stand pro tanto cut down to only that portion, which lies outside the 1Mysore District. The result, therefore, is that no distinction can be made between the notification of a portion of the route of the private operators lying within the Mysore District and the notification of a different route, in which the portion within the Mysore District is also included. What we have said in the other case applies equallysuch route, however, was pointed out to us, and we need not express any opinion on this part of the case or as to what would happen if such a routewas, however, held by this Court that a departure from the minimum number would mean the alteration of the scheme, necessitating the observance of all the formalities for framing a scheme. In view of this, the Rules were amended, obviating the necessity of indicating the minimum number. The Rule, as it now stands, has been complied with, and there being no challenge to the Rule as such, one cannot say that the scheme is defective on this account.