LexA.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus P.V. RAMAMOHAN CHOWDHARY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION l'. P.V. RAMAMOHAN CHOWDHARY AND ORS. FEBRUARY 18, 1992 B [N. M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, .IJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: Sections 68-C; 68-D and 68-E. State Transport Undertaking-Nationalisation scheme-Partial exemp- C tionfrom the operation of tile .1c/1emt'-Validity of-Partial excl11sio11 licld not violatire of Article 14. Modification of Scl1eml'--Powers of Governmell/ lo modify tire Jc'1en1l-(.'onditions ncccssai)· for aniending the schenic discussed. D Comtiturion of India. 1950: Article 14. In exercise of its power under section 68-D of the Motor Vehicle. Act, 1939 the Government of Andhra Pradesh approved a draft scheme ---- framed under section 68-C relating to the route Anantapur to ~· ~ E Dhardmavaram via Mamillapalli. However, exemption was granted to persons holding permit for the routes namely (a) Kodikonda to Anantapur via Dharmavaram; (b) RukkHpatnam to Anantapur via Dharmavaram; (c) Interstate route Virechal to Dharmavaram 1-ia Anantapur; (d) Anan- tapur lo Puttaparti 1·ia Dharmavaram aud the partial exemption of these routes from the scheme was upheld by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. F Thereafter, the respondents filed a writ petition in High Court for a direction for exemption from the operation ~if the scheme, and the High Court held that exclusion of the respondents was discriminatory. Accord- ingly it directed the State Govt. to consider the respondent's case and pass appropriate orders to accord exemption from the operation of the scheme. G Against the decision of the High Court the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation tiled an appeal in this Court. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that since the State Government exempted four routes from the operation of the scheme they are entitled to parity and denial offends their right to equality under H Article 14 of the Constitution. 830 • A.P. ~l"r\TE l~O:\D Tl'T. CC)RP'°. 1: CllO\\/DllARY 831 Allowing tlte appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, . A this Court, HELD : I. Section 6X-C ol' the Motor Veb:cles Act, whose constitu- tional rnlidity can no longer be ~uestioned, gives power to the Slate Transport Undertaking to exclude the private operators completely or partially from an area or route or part thereof in the draft st•heme. It gives exclusive power lo olTer transport service in that area or route or part thereol'. [833H, 834A) -J 2. The statute its.II' gives power to the Stale lo exercise d,iscretion B for formulating a scheme for an area or route or part thereol' and neces- C sarily has the elltcl ol' excluding the existing or potential private operators from the fields lo render transport service in that partially prohibited area etc. \\-'bile retaining similar private operators in other area. route or part thereof. The exclusion completely or partially is allowable under the statute it•elf and is writ large. The discretion need not necessarily be discriminatory. Section 68-C left the choice to the State Tran•port Under- taking and so discrimination in that sense is discernible from the section ---, which itsell' authorises the State Tran•j>ort Undertaking, based on l'al'lual matrix. eliminate in its choice of a partial exclusion of prh1ale operators D in an area or route or part tht'reof. Opportunit)' has been given to an allected party to file his or their objections and ol' a right of hearing before E the State Govt. apprrwed ol' the drall scheme and publication thereof' in the gazette. The exercise ol' rlisc.-.tion by the State Transport Undertaking in its selecth•e application of partial prohibition i!ii controlled and regu- lated by the statute in Ss. 68-D and 68-E of the Act. [83~R-D) Ram Nath Vcnna v. Stale of Rajastlra11, [1963] 2 S.C.R. 152, referred F lo. 3. Giving primacy lo the contention of violation of Article 14 would be f'rnught with insidious ell'ect ol' upsetting the very scheme itse!f, since anyone of the existing or potential operators would always contend that he G too is similarly situated "ith that ol' the exempted operators of' other area, route nr part thereof and unt-qual treat1nent has been n1eted out in tht' grunt of permit to offer transport sen·ice offending his right under A.rticle 14. [834H, 835A) 4. It is now settled law that e•·en on a partial overlapping apprO\·ed H 832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 1 S.C.R. A scheme private operators have been tot
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.