JAGANMOHAN REDDY - (1.) THE Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, the appellant (hereinafter called the Corporation) operates on the notified route under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' -- between Hiriyur and V. V. Sagar, It objected to the renewal of a permit to the 3rd respondent C. Abdul Rahim for the route Hiriyur to Chitradurga and back vis V. V. Sagar, Hosadurga and Janakal on the ground that the renewal will authorise an overlapping over three miles on the notified route. Both the Regional Transport Authority, Chitradurga and the Regional Trnasport Authority, Bangalore, negatived the objection. It may be mentioned that the ground upon which the appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the order of renewal passed by the Regional Transport. Authority was that in some other cases the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal had held that the integrity of a scheme is not imparied if the distance of the overlapping portion is about five miles and if a condition not to pick up or set down passengers on the notified route is attache. On this reasoning the Tribunal thought there were no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. THE appellant then filed a writ petition in what is now the Karnataka High Court but it was dismissed by a Division Bench in Limine. This appeal is by special leave against that dismissed order.
(2.) IT appears that the passenger transport services on the routes appearing at Serial Nos. 1 to 22, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 53 of the statement appended to the scheme approved under Section 68-D (2) of the Act, subject to the modification set out in the notification dated 7/06/1960, included "services between any two places therein", and the transport services were ''to be run and operated by the State Transport undertaking to the complete exclusion of other operators'. The notification then sets out the various details of the said approved scheme known as the Bangalore Scheme. The question at issue is whether the scheme prohibits overlaping of the route or routes of private operators on a part or whole of the notified route, if the route or routes overlap as aforesaid, then no permit can be granted to those private operators over the notified routes which prohibit them to operate over those routes. This proposition was laid down in several decisions of this Court to which reference will be made hereafter. In a recent judgment of this Court by one of us (Beg, J. and Chandrachud, J., concurring with him) in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal Civil Appeals Nos. 1755-1756 of 1969, D/- 17-5-1974 (SC) this court has taken a contrary view. No doubt this case was one rendered in respect of inter-State routes, while the instant case is one relating to intra-State routes. There, however, seems to be no difference in the principal applicable to both the cases. The principal governing intra-State routes has been extended to inter-State routes vide Abdul Khader saheb v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, (1973) 2 SCR 925 = (AIR 1973 SC 534). As the recent decision to which reference has been made seems to take a contrary view to that taken by even larger Benches of this Court, we find it necessary to re-examine the question posed before us. Under Section 68-C of the Act where a State Transport Undertaking is of opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services in general or any particular class of such services in relation to any area or routes or portion thereof should be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise, the State Transport Undertaking may prepare a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the service proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered etc. The scheme so framed has to be published under Section 68-D, objections called for and the scheme as finally approved has to be published under Section 68-F with or without modifications including any prohibitions on the area or route or parts of an area or a route covered by the notified scheme. There is now no doubt that any route or area either wholly or partly can be taken over by a State Undertaking under and scheme published approved and notified under the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Act inserted by Section 62 of Act 100 of 1976. The provisions of this Chapter confer a monopoly on the State in respect of transport services to the partial or complete exclusion of other persons. In Y. J. Kondala Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. AIR 1961 SC 82 a constitution Bench of this Court held that Chapter IV-A of the Act in specific terms provides a complete and in the circumstances a satisfactory machinery for reasonably regulations the exclusion of all or some of the private operators from the notified area or route. Subbe Rao, J., as he then was, speaking for the Court pointed out that, inSaghir Ahmad v. State of U.P., (1955) 1 SCR 707 = (AIR 1954 SC 728) the constitutional validity of Section 42 (3) of the Act was questioned. What Saghir Ahmad's case decided was that the public were entitled to use public streets and roads which vest in the State as a matter of right. The State as the trustee on behalf of the public was entitled to impose all such limitations on the character and extent of the user as may be requisite for protecting the rights of the public generally. Within the limits imposed by State Regulations any member of the public can ply motor vehicles on public roads and to that extent he can also carry on business of transporting passengers with the aid of a vehicle. As infringement of the right which was challenged in that case arose before the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, the impugned restriction was held not to be justified as a reasonable restriction imposed in the interests of the general public. As a result of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, Article 19 (6) enables the State to carry on any trade or business either by itself or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, to the exclusion, complete or partial of citizens or otherwise. Saghir Ahmad's case would have no application to scheme notified under Chapter IV-A of the Act because what has now to be seen is whether under that scheme private operators are permitted to ply their vehicles on the notified route or routes with or without restrictions or totally prohibited from using those routes. Whether a route is inter-state route or intra-State route the power to exclude is conferred by Chapter IV-A.
(3.) IN Y. J. Kondala Rao's case AIR 1961 SC 82 the question was whether the word "route" in Section 68-C refers to a pre-existing route. It was contended that the words "route or portion thereof in the section clearly indicates that the route is an existing route because a scheme cannot be framed in respect of a portion of the proposed route. This contention was negatived. The Court observed at p. 93 : "We do not see any force in this contention. Under Section 68-C of the Act the scheme may be framed in respect of any area or a route or a portion of any area or a portion of a route. There is no inhernt inconsistency between an "area" and a "route". The proposed route is also an area limited to the route propose. The scheme may as well propose to operate a transport service in respect of a new route from point A to point B and that route would certainly be an area within the meaning of Section 68-C. We, therefore, hold that Section 68-C certainly empowers the State Transport Undertaking to propose a scheme to include new routes." new routes". In the case of Abdul Gafoor v. State of Mysore, 1962 (1) SCR 909 = (AIR 1961 SC 1556) another Constitution Bench of this Court considered the effect of notifying a scheme and it was stated there that when a scheme had been notified under Chapter IV-A of the Act and an application was made for the grant of a permit on a route notified under the scheme by a private operator the Regional Transport Authority had no option but to refuse the permit to the private operator and to grant the application presented by the State Transport Undertaking for a permit. It has no right to ask for assistance from the public or existing permit-holders of the transport service holders. Neither the public in general nor the permit-holders have any part to play in the matter. The only duty it has to do is to examine the application and to see whether it is in pursuance of an approved scheme and secondly whether is has been made in the manner laid down in Chapter IV-A. If, therefore the scheme prohibits private transport owners to operate on the notified area or route or any portion thereof, the Regional Transport Authority cannot either renew the permit of such private owners or give any fresh permit in respect of a route which overlaps the notified route. The question is whether the scheme read as a whole prohibits the private owners from operating on any of the private routes.;