Summarize the following court judgment. Civil Appeals No. 180 of 1961. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 30	 1961	 of the Mysore High Court	 in Writ Petition No. 1326 of 1960. section T. Desai	 B. R. L. Iyengar and K. P. Bhat	 for the Appellant. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri	 R. Gopalakrishnan and T. M. Sen	 for the respondents. December 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH	 J. The appellants	 C. P. C. Motor Service	 Mysore	 question a scheme approved and applied by the State of Mysore by its Notification No. HD. 200/TMP/60 in Gazette (Extraordinary) on November 10	 1960. They had unsuccessfully moved the High Court under article 226 of Constitution	 and the present appeal is filed with the special leave of this Court. The appellants were running stage carriage omnibuses on 18 routes	 and 14 such routes are inter District. On 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. IV A of the 	 inserted by section 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 719 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 article 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. 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 been non compliance with the mandatory requirements of sections 68C and 68E of the ; that the scheme is destructive of co ordination	 which 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. These contentions will be dealt with in detail by us in this judgment	 and need not be stated at greater length at this stage. Private operators in the Mysore State including the appellants	 plied their omnibuses on three different kinds of routes. They were inter District	 inter District and inter State. By the scheme	 the State Transport Undertaking had taken over 64 routes	 but the exclusion of the private operators was only in the Mysore District. In the approved scheme	 this is stated in the following words: 720 "(d) Whether the services are 1. The State Transport to be operated by the Undertaking will ope State Transport Under rate services to the taking to the exclusion	 complete exclusion complete or partial	 of of other persons(i) other persons or other on all the notified wise. inter district routes except in regard to the portions of inter district routes lying outside the limits of Mysore District	 and also (ii) over the en tire length of each of the inter district route lying within the limits of Mysore District. In so far as the noti fied routes are con cerned the State Transport Undertak ing will operate with out prejudice to rights of the existing valid permit holders for operation of Stage Carriage Services on the Inter State routes only". In describing the routes in the appendix to the scheme	 these routes were shown with all the stops between the termini	 together with the length of the routes in miles	 the maximum number of vehicles to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking and by private operators	 and the maximum number of daily services (return trips) to be provided in relation to each route by the State Transport Undertaking and by the private operators. The columns dealing with private operators in respect of the maximum number of vehicles as well as the maximum number of the daily services were invariably shown as "Nil". Section 68C of the permits the taking over 721 of any route or area either wholly or partly by the State Undertaking	 and the action of the State Government has not been challenged as either ultra vires or invalid. This is due perhaps to the fact that in a number of cases recently decided by this Court	 schemes of this type have been held to be valid	 and the provisions of Chap. IV A	 in view of the amendments effected by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act	 1951	 in article 19(6)	 have been held intra vires the State Legislatures. Those cases are also referred to by the High Court in the judgment dealing with the Hassan District scheme. The first question that has been raised is that the scheme is vague	 indefinite and contradictory. The vagueness	 it is said	 arises from the fact that though under section 68C certain particulars have to be mentioned	 they have not been so mentioned in the scheme. This point is illustrated by referring to the columns in which the routes of private operators have not been shown; but it is stated by the respondents that on the routes mentioned in the scheme	 the private operators have no omnibuses	 nor any daily services at all. 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 . 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 722 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. Similarly	 the argument that the scheme is destructive of co ordination is 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 from State owned buses 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 of co ordination. Under section 68C	 the 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	 but co ordination would 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. Really	 the main attack against the scheme is that though the Chief Minister had upheld the objection of the appellants in an earlier portion of his order	 the direction which he contemplated giving was not effectuated	 leading to a contradiction between the order and the approved scheme. The Chief Minister	 in dealing with the objection of the private operators	 had observed in his order as follows: "The Private Operators contended that exclusive operation by the Mysore Government Road Transport Department on the proposed notified routes might seriously affect them on certain Inter District routes as well as Inter State routes. The State Transport Undertaking 723 it was argued	 had not proposed nationalisation of certain Inter District and Inter State routes lying outside the limits of Mysore District	 though a few of the notified routes traverse portions of Inter State and Inter District routes. 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 of Inter State and Inter District routes which are notified. There is much force in this contention and accordingly	 the Scheme is directed to be suitably modified. " It was argued that the point which was made before the Chief Minister was that between the routes which were taken over and some of the inter District and inter State routes which were left to the private operators	 there was an overlap in the Mysore District	 and that those routes which were not taken over including the portion of the route lying within the Mysore District should not be held to be affected by the scheme. It was argued that the Chief Minister in his order quoted above	 accepted the contention	 and gave directions for the suitable modification of the scheme	 but in carrying out the modifications	 the directions	 quoted above	 were not included	 and they excluded the private operators from that portion of the route lying within the District of Mysore	 even though that route was different from the route	 which had been taken over. 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 724 affect the passenger transport system on certain portions of inter State and inter District routes which are not notified	 the words which are not notified" qualify not the word "route" but the word "portions". The direction which was given	 effectuates the later 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 there were excluded from that portion of the route which lay within the District. In Nilkanth Prasad vs State of Bihar	 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 by us. It was next contended that the inter District routes	 which the appellants were operating	 could not be said to be affected by the scheme at 725 all	 because "route" means a notional line running between two termini and following a distinct course. This meaning was given to the word "route" by the Privy Council in a case from Ceylon reported in Kelani Valley Motor Transit Co.	 Ltd. vs Colombo Ratnapura Omnibus Co.	 Ltd. It is said that the ruling applies in the present case where what is notified as for exclusive running by the State Transport Undertaking is not a definite portion of a route of a private operator but is a different route altogether. This may be illustrated by algebraic notations. If the route of the private operator was ABPQR	 AB lying within the District of Mysore and PQR outside it	 it is submitted that a route ABCDE may overlap the other route up to the point B but is not the same route	 and	 therefore	 cannot be said to be notified. What is meant by a route in the Act has been elaborately discussed by us in the other judgment delivered to day. The 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. 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 726 word "route" was contracted with the word "highway". In the 	 the words used are "route or area"	 and it has been held by this Court that these words mean the same thing: Kondala Rao vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The scheme of the Act in section 68F(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 were inter District open to the private operators would stand pro tanto out down to only that portion	 which lies outside the Mysore 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 applied equally here. It was suggested during the argument that there were certain routes which did not cover any portion of the notified route but met that route at certain point or points. Reverting to the algebraic notations given above	 it was said that route APBQR would not cover any portion of the notified route ABCDE	 and must at least	 therefore	 be outside the scheme. No such 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 route existed. 727 Lastly	 it was contended that the minimum number of trips and the minimum number of vehicles to be put on the road with respect to any route has not been indicated	 and that this is not a proper scheme	 because a scheme must show how comparatively more efficient service is to be provided by the State Transport Undertaking. The earlier Rules required a statement as to the minimum and maximum number of vehicles to be put on a route	 as also the minimum and maximum trips. It was	 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. The result is that this appeal must fail	 and is dismissed; but in the circumstances of the case	 we make no order about costs. Appeal dismissed.

Under a scheme for taking over certain stage carriage services to the complete exclusion of private operators	 which was approved and notified by the State of Mysore under the provisions of Ch. IV A of the 	 it was provided	 inter alia: "The State Transport Undertaking will operate services to the complete exclusion of other persons (i) on all the notified inter district routes except in regard to the portions of inter district routes Lying outside the limits of Mysore District	 and also (ii) over the entire length of each of the inter district routes Lying within the limits of Mysore District. " The appellants who were running stage carriage omnibuses of certain routes	 some of which were inter district and inter State	 challenged the validity of the scheme on the ground	 inter alia	 that between the routes which were taken over and some of the inter district and inter State routes which were left to the private operators	 there was an overlap in the Mysore District	 and that those routes which were not taken over including the portion of the route Lying within the Mysore District should not be affected by the scheme	 because "route" meant a notional line running between two termini and following a distinct course. ^ Held	 that the scheme of the 	 is that the word "route" meant not only the notional line but also the actual road over which the omnibuses run. Under the Act the route or area stand for the road on which the omnibuses run or portions thereof. Kondala Rao vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation	 A. I. R. 	 relied on. Kelani Valley Motor Transit Co.	 Ltd. vs Colombo Ratnapura Omnibus Co.	 Ltd. [1946] A. C. 338	 explained and distinguished. In the present case	 in view of the fact that the scheme reserved all the routes within the Mysore District to the State Transport Undertaking	 the private operators would not be able to ply their omnibuses on that sector and even those 718 routes which were inter district open to them would stand pro tanto cut down to only that portion which lay outside the Mysore District. Nilkanth Prasad vs The State of Bihar	 [1962] Supp. 1 section C. R. 717	 followed.