HIDAYATULLAH, - (1.)THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.)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 10/11/1960. THEy had unsuccessfully moved the High court under Art. 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 21/09/1960, 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 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 7/11/1960. 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 30/01/1961, 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 ss. 68C and 68E of the Motor Vehicles Act; 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 interDistrict, 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: JUDGEMENT_1661_AIR(SC)_1966Html1.htm 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 Motor Vehicles Act permits the taking over 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 Art. 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 s. 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 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.

(3.)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 s. 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 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 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 v. 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.