A. VISHWANATH RAO ETC. versus THE STATE OF MYSORE & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 198 · Decided: 16-02-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A. VISHWANATII RAO ETC. 
v. 
THE STATE OF MYSORE & ORS. 
February 16, 1968 
• ' 
(J. C. SHAH, V. RAM~SWAMI AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.) 
Motor Vehicles Act 1939, ss. 68•8, 
68.C, 68-D, awd 68-E; Rood 
Tramport Act 1950, s. 20; Constitution of Jndia, Art, 14;-Mysore State 
Transport Corporation preparing sclle1ne to take over route partly in Mysor~ 
nnd partly in A11dhra Pradesh-Both State Governments and Centrcl 
Government approving final schemt-failure to prepare scheme accordiFlg 
to s. 20 of 1950 Act if mere irregu/arity.-Scheme prescribing wide dis-
pa;ity between nwximuni and 1ni11im&1m n11mber of vehicles and services-
if fraud on ss. 68.C and 68-E-Exclusion only of Mysore and not~Andhra 
Pradish pr;vate operators-if discrbninatory. 
The appellants were tralisport operators plying a stage carriag.e on an 
inter-State route 28 mile. Ion~ oi which a portion of 5 miles is ·situated 
in the State of Andhra Prade.h· and the rest in the State of Mysore. A 
draft scheme was prepared and published by the second respondent M~re 
State Road Transport Corporation under s. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles 
Act, 1939, proposing to take over the Stage Carria&e Services oil tho 
route to the complete exclusion of othe'r operators. After objections against 
the scheme had been heard by the Chief Minister of the State of Mysore 
under s. 68·B of the Act, tbe draft scheme was. approved by his order dated 
March 7, 1964 with two modifications whereby, firstly, it specified the mini· 
mum number_ of vehicles and daily servioes and, secondlf, it res!rictcd the 
exclusion of other operators only to that part of the route which was in the 
State of Mysore. The approval of the Central Government was accorded 
to the scheme under the proviso to s. 6l!-D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 
and the final scheme was published by the Mysore Government in its 
Gazette dated July 16, 1964. 
1be appellants challenged the notification of the Mysore Government 
approving tho final scheme by. a writ petition under Art. 226 
..,~f the 
Constitution but the petition was dismissed by the High Court. 
· 
It was contended on behalf of the appellants (i) that the provisions or 
s; 20 of. the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, were not l:Omplied 
with and the final scheme published by the first respondent w..S ull.ra vin'.s: 
(ii) that whereas in the draft scheme the maximum number of ·vehicles 
and daily services were specified and not the minimum number, the final 
scl1eme provided the maximum number of vehicles a.\ 18 and· the( mini· 
mum as one, and the maximum number of daily services as 10 and the 
minimum as 3; it was contended that by permitting such a great disparity 
between the maximum and minimum number of vehicles and daily .services 
there was a virtual modification of the draft scheme and therefore the 
procedure prescribed by s. 68-E of the Motor Vehicles Act should have 
been followed; and (iii) that the approved scheme violated Art, 14 of the 
Constitution as there was a complete exclusion of the private Operators on 
the portion of the route located in the M}'IOre State. while permitting 
those. who were plying their vehicles on the portion of the route lying in 
the Slate of Andbra Pradesh. 
HELD : dismissing the appeal : 
I 
c 
D 
£ 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
V~WANATH RAO v. MYSORE (Rama.nvami, I.) 
199 
(i) Even assuming !hat the reqoirements of s. 
20 of the Road 
T r•nsp<)rt Corporations Act should also be followed in a case where the 
Central Government ·has given its sanction mder s. 68·D of the Motor 
Vehicles Act, it must be held that there had been sufficient compliance 
with the '.requirements of the Road Transport Corporations Act in the 
present case. It was not disputed that .the concurrence of the Sta•c of 
Andhra Pradesh was secured for the final acheme and the Gowrnment of 
the State of Mysore bad also accorded its approval to it. Jn these circum-
btances the omission of -the first respondent to make the scheme in the 
precise manner in which " 20 of the Road Transport Corporation Act 
directs the prepai'ation of the scheme was ii mere irregularity which could 
not lead to the nullification of the final acheme. (203 H-204 BJ 
(ii) In the present case the· distance of the route in question was a 
>hort distance of 28 miles, and the order of the Chief Minister shows that 
there was seasonal variation of traffic density nnd during marriage and 
other seasons it was ncce."!.sary to operate extra services. There was also 
varia

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.