Case: Nilkanth Prasad And Others Vs. State Of Bihar

The appellants held previously stage carriage permits over certain routes, which were due to expire in December, 1958 or in January, 1959. They had applied for renewal of their permits under S. 58 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Under a scheme framed and notified on July 8, 1957, vide Notification No. P-2-203/57T/4794, the route, Gaya to Khijirsarai, was notified under S. 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Rajya Transport, Bihar, was exclusively allowed to operate on that route. In Civil Appeals Nos. 535 to 538 of 1961, the Rajya Transport, Bihar, filed objections against the renewal of the permits. In Civil Appeals Nos. 534 and 539 of 1961, no objections were filed. The route, Gaya to Khijirsarai, which may be called conveniently route AB formed part of routes, on which the appellants were operating, and in respect of which they had asked for renewal of their permits. The South Bihar Regional Transport Authority, however, renewed the permits of the appellants, holding that route AB was different from the routes, for which renewal was demanded2. Against the orders of the Regional Transport Authority, appeals were filed by the Rajya Transport, Bihar in all the cases, that is to say, in those cases in which the Rajya Transport, Bihar, had objected, and those in which it had not objected. While these appeals were pending, the State of Bihar, acting under S. 3 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (64 of 1950) notified on April 20, 1959 as follows :"No. R. T. Cor. 1/59-3090 - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (LXIV of 1950), the Governor of Bihar is pleased to establish with effect from the 1st May, 1959 a Road Transport Corporation, for the State of Bihar, to be called the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation2. The said Corporation shall with effect from the said date, exercise all the powers and perform all the functions which are at present being exercised and performed by the Rajya Transport, BiharBy order of the Governor of BiharK. B. Sharma, Dy. Secy."3. At the hearing of the appeals, the Government Advocate, Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, appeared for the Road Transport Corporation. Objection was taken to the competency of the appeals on two grounds. In those cases in which the Rajya Transport, Bihar, had not objected to the renewal of the permits before the Regional Transport Authority, it was contended that it had no locus standi to file appeals. In those cases in which it had so objected, the ground was that the Road Transport Corporation could not, in law, represent ,the Rajya Transport, Bihar, in the appeals filed by the latter. On merits, it was contended that the order of the Regional Transport Authority that route AB, though part of the routes for which renewal was asked, was a different route, and the State corporation had an exclusive right to ply omnibuses on route AB, did not affect the rights of the appellants to ply their omnibuses on routes, which were entirely different4. The Government Advocate contended that, on the analogy of the principle underlying O. 22, R. 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Road Transport Corporation on which devolved the powers and functions of the Rajya Transport, Bihar, could prosecute the appeals. He also contended, in the alternative, that he was representing also the Rajya Transport, Bihar, and that the appeals were not defective. The Board accepted the argument of the Government Advocate, and set aside the orders of renewal passed by the Regional Transport Authority. The appellants then filed petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Board on many grounds. The High Court, by its judgment dated July 5, 1961, dismissed all the petitions. In the order under appeal, the High Court considered the competency of the appeals, and held that the Rajya Transport, Bihar, was competent to prosecute the appeals before the Appeal Board. In dealing with the question whether the Appeal Board was entitled to interfere with the order of the Regional Transport Authority at the instance of the Rajya Transport in those cases, where the Rajya Transport had not filed objections under the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court held that it was not necessary to express an opinion on the correctness of the argument, because the Regional Transport Authority was not competent to grant a renewal, inasmuch as such a grant was a direct violation of the scheme approved by the State Government and published in the Official Gazette. On the merits, the High Court was of opinion that under S. 68F (2) (c) (iii), the Regional Transport Authority could curtail the length of the route covered by the permit, and exclude the portion, which overlapped a notified route. The present appeals have been filed against the order of the High Court, with the special leave of this CourtCivil Appeal No. 434 of 1961.

Court's reasoning:
In the former, the grant of renewal of the permits has been made without any objection, and in the latter, in spite of the objections filed by the Rajya Transport. The competency of the appeals before the Appeal Board is involved in both the groups, though on different grounds. The answer to the different objections is, however, the sameIn all the present cases, The State Transport Undertaking had already been granted a permit over route AB, and if the private operators, that is to say, the appellants, were not entitled, in law, to the renewal of their permits for routes which embraced also route AB, then the Regional transport Authority could not but refuse to renew the permitsIn our opinion, we should not interfere on this ground either. In this connection the difference between the two sets of cases arising from the fact whether the Rajya Transport, Bihar, had objected or not, completely disappearsIn any event, under S.68C it is provided that a scheme may notify a route or an area or a portion of a route or a portion of an area, and the exclusion of the private operators from the whole route or the whole area or a part of the route or a part of that area, as the case may be, may be either complete or partial, and under S. 68-F (2)(c) (iii), the Regional Transport Authority may modify the terms of any existing permit so as toThis means that even in those cases where the notified route and the route applied for run over a common sector, the curtailment by virtue of the notified scheme would be by excluding that portion of the route or, in other words, the "road" common to both. The distinction between "route" as the notional line and "road" as the physical track disappears in the working of Chap. IVA, because you cannot curtail the route without curtailing a portion of the road, and the ruling of the Court to which we have referred, would also show that even if the route was different, the area at least would be the same. The ruling of the Judicial Committee cannot be made applicable to the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Chap. IV- A, where the intention is to exclude private operators completely from running over certain sectors or routes vested in State. Transport Undertakings. In our opinion, therefore, the appellants were rightly held to be disentitled to run over those portions of their routes which were notified as part of the scheme. Those portions cannot be said to be different routes, but must be regarded as portions of the routes of the private operators, from which the private operators stood excluded under S. 68F (2) (c) (iii) of the Act. The decision under appeal was, therefore, correct in all the circumstances of the caseAfter considering the matter in the light of that section, the Divisional Bench has reached the same conclusion as we have, and along almost the same line of reasoning. In view of what we have said in Civil Appeal No. 534 of 1961, Civil Appeal No. 434 of 1961 must also fail.