DEEP NARAIN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(PAT)-1960-8-12
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on August 08,1960

DEEP NARAIN PANDEY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STRADLING V. MORGAN [REFERRED TO]
HEYDON'S CASE [REFERRED TO]
LEGGOTT V. BARRETT [REFERRED TO]
ABBY DODGE V. UNITED STATES [REFERRED TO]
KELANI VALLEY MOTOR TRANSIT CO. LTD. V. COLOMBO RATNAPURA OMNIBUS CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
EASTMAN PHOTOGRAPHIC MATERIALS CO V. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION V. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
MINERAL DEVELOPMENT LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ROMESH THAPPAR VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. UNITED MOTORS INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
BISWAMBHAR SINGH VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
GULLAPALLI NAGESWARA RAO VS. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
GULLAPPALLI NAGESWARARAO CHENNUPATI SATYANARAYANA V SOMASANKARA SASTRY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SHRINIVASA REDDY VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]





JUDGEMENT

V.Ramaswami, C.J. - (1.)In Misc. Judicial Case No. 334 of 1960, the petitioner, namely. M/s. Road Transport Company at Dhanbad, has been carrying on motor transport business by running stage carriage services on Dhanbad-Hazanbagh and Dhanbad-Giridih routes by virtue of permits granted by the Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority. On the 29th January, 1960, the petitioner applied for renewal of permits under Section 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It appears that respondent No. 3, the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, prepared a scheme under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act for notification of certain 'routes, and the scheme was published in the Bihar Gazette dated 13-1-1960. A copy of the draft scheme in Hindi is annexure A to the application, which reads as follows: ..(Verunacular Matter Omitted).. The petitioner and a number of other persons filed objections to the said scheme, and the objections were heard by the Minister of Transport on 16-3-1960. The Minister of Transport rejected the objections and on 1-4-1960, the draft scheme was approved with certain modifications and published in an extra-ordinary issue of the Bihar Gazette. The notification of the State Government dated 1-4-1960, reads as follows:
"The Bihar Gazette Extraordinary Published by Authority. Chaitra 12, 1882. No. Patna 145: Patna, Friday, April 1, 1960. Political (Transport) Department NOTIFICATION. The 1st April, 1960. No. 5.T.-- Whereas the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, which is a State Transport undertaking published a scheme in the Bihar Gazette, dated the ,13th January, 1960 (Part IX), in pursuance of Section 68C of the M. V. Act, 1939 (IV of 1939) to run its services relating to certain routes or portions thereof for the purpose of providing efficient adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated passenger transport services on those routes or portions thereof. And whereas the objections received in respect of the scheme have been considered by the State Government after giving an opportunity to the representatives of the objectors and those of the Bihar Road Transport Corporation to Be heard in the matter. Now, therefore, in pursuance of Sub-section (2) of Section 68D of the said Act the State Government are pleased to approve the scheme with the following modifications namely;

(a) All services on the following routes will be plied by the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation from the 1st April, 1961 and not from the 1st April, 1960; (i) Ranchi-Muri or portion thereof; (ii) Giridih-Jamua-Kodarma or portions thereof; and (iii) Jamua-Chakal or portions thereof, and

(b) the portion Gobindpur-Chirkunda or portions thereof is deleted from the route Barhi Bagodar-Dumri-Gobindpur-Chirkunda or portions thereof, The State Government are further pleaded to direct that persons holding permanent permits to run stage carriages on the routes specified in the Approved Scheme shall operate them until the date of expiration of the existing permits. The scheme so modified is hereunder published as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 68D of the said Act.

SCHEME The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation shall run and operate stage carriage services relating to routes or portions thereof specified below to the complete exclusion of other persons except those who, on the dates specified below, hold permanent permits to run stage carriages on those routes and are hereby allowed to operate them until the dates of expiration of the existing permits :
JUDGEMENT_575_AIR(PAT)_1960Html1.htm
By order of the Governor of Bihar, Sd./- K. B. Sharma Deputy Secretary to Government. On the 2nd April, 1960, the petitioner appeared before respondent No. 2 and submitted that the scheme was illegal and there should be a grant of renewal of the petitioner's permits even over the notified routes. The objection was overruled by respondent No. 2, and the application for renewal of the permits made by the petitioner was refused, except for such portions of the routes which were not notified. The petitioner thereafter moved the High Court for grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution for calling up and quashing the scheme and notification of the State Government, dated 1-4-1960, and also the order of the Minister of Transport, dated 2-4-1960, refusing to renew the petitioner's permits.

(2.)Cause has been shown by the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the State Road Transport Corporation and by the Government Pleader on behalf of other respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given.
(3.)Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted in the first place that the approved scheme was bad because of vagueness and uncertainty of the portions of the routes to be taken over. It was contended that the scheme did not specify the portions of the routes which were sought to be taken over and, therefore, it must be held to be void for vagueness and uncertainty, Learned counsel pointed out that the tabular portion of the scheme, item No. 1, column No. 3, reads as "Ranchi-Muri or portions thereof", and item No. 2, column No. 3, reads "Hazaribagh-Ran-chi or portions thereof". There are similar entries under items Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, column No. 8, of the tabular statement. The contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that it is not clear from the approved scheme whether the intention of the State Road Transport Corporation was to take over the entire routes or to take over portions thereof and also which of the portions were intended to be taken over. The argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner is very ingenious, but I do not think there is any substance in the argument. The reason is that the tabular part of the approved scheme must be read in the context of the preamble "of the scheme and also the draft scheme published on 13-1-1960. The preamble of the draft scheme states that
"As the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation consider that in public interest, for the efficient provision of sufficient economical and well-equipped passenger vehicles on several routes it is necessary that passenger vehicles running on those routes and different parts thereof and connected with those routes', should be run only by Bihar State Road Transport Corporation from the dates quoted in the under-mentioned scheme."
The draft scheme is in Hindi, but learned counsel for the parties conceded that the English translation of the passage noted above is correct. It was contended by the learned Government Advocate that the word "or" in the tabular statement of approved scheme, with regard to items 1 to 6, should be construed as "and" and, therefore, the intention of the State Road Transport Corporation was not to take portions of the routes but to take over the entire routes in items 1 to 6 of the tabular statement. The learned Government Advocate also referred to the preamble of the draft scheme where the expression ''those routes and different parts thereof" has been used. Reference was also made in this connection to the following passage from Halsbury's Law of England, 2nd Edn., Vol. 10, p. 266: "If the construction is doubtful, and the doubt cannot be removed in any other way, it is permissible to refer to a preliminary agreement, at any rate if recited in the instrument. ....." and also to Leggott v. Barrett, (1880) 15 Ch D 306, where Brett, L. J., stated as follows: 'If there is any doubt about the construction of the governing words, the recital may be looked at to determine what is the true construction." In my opinion, the argument of the learned Govt. Advocate is well founded and must be accepted as correct. It is manifest that the approved scheme, published on the 1st April, 1960, (annexure B), should be read and construed along with the draft scheme (annexure A). It is manifest that the order of the Minister of Transport cannot be understood without reference to the draft scheme which was the subject-matter of consideration before him. I consider that the draft scheme and the approved scheme and the order of the Minister or Transport on the draft scheme are parts of a single proceeding and so the tabular statement of the approved scheme should be considered in the light of the preamble of the draft scheme. I therefore, hold that the word "or" in column 3 of the tabular statement of the approved scheme with regard to items 1 to 6 should be interpreted in a conjunctive sense, and the intention of the State Road Transport Corporation was to take over the entire routes mentioned in items, 1 to 6 by virtue of the scheme and not merely portions thereof, I would, therefore, reject the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner on this part of the case.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.