ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HYDERABADBAD versus G.T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 4 · Decided: 24-08-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. RAMASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT 
CORPORATION, HYDERABAD 
v. 
G.T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY AND ORS. 
AUGUST 24, 1992 
[V. RAMASWAMI AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: 
C 
Proviso to Section 68-D(3/-Draft schem,._Terminii of the notified 
route falling within the State-Portion of the route overlapping inter-State 
rout,._Allowing existing pennit holders to operate on inter State routes over-
lapping the notified route subject to corridor restriction-Validity of-Whether 
deemed to be an approved intra State Schem,._Approval of Central Govern-
ment-Whether required-Objections of operators heard on draft schem,._ 
D Not heard on the exemption-Whether amounts to violation of principles of 
Natural Justice. 
E 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 14-Draft Scheme under section 68-D of Motor Vehicles Ac~ 
1939-Notified route overlapping inter-State routes-Saving clause imposing 
corridor restriction-Whether discriminatory and violative of 
The appellant-Corporation published a draft scheme relating to an 
intra-State route. The scheme envisaged the exclusion of all other 
F 
operators on the route with certain exceptions. Respondent No.I who was 
operating an inter-state carriage in the route, a portion of which was 
covered by the notified scheme and thus overlapping, filed his objections. 
The dralt scheme was approved with some modifications. Clause 4 of the 
Note appended to the approved scheme allowed the permit holders of stage 
G carriages on the inter-State routes overlapping the notified route to run 
the route snbject to 'corridor restriction' viz., they should not pick up or 
set do"n intra- state passengers on the notified area. 
Respondent No.I filed a Writ Petition before the High Court chal-
lenging the validity of clause ( 4) on the ground that it fell outside the 
H competence of the State Government under section 68D(2) of the Motor 
4 
S.R.T.C. v. G.T.V. REDDY 
5 
Vehicles Act, I939; and that it was violative of Article I4 of the constitution A 
of India. A Single Judge of the High Court quashed a portion of the 
condition contained in clause (4) viz. picking up or setting down intra-state 
pas.sengers on the route. It was also held that the notified scheme was 
opposed to the principles of Natural Justice since no opportunity was 
afforded to the objectors. The appeal preferred by the appellant was 
dismissed by the Division Bench. Aggrieved against the said order, the 
appellant-Corporation preferred the present appeal. 
B 
The Respondents contested the appeal on the ground that the 'cor-
ridor restrictions' contained the clause (4) of the Note did not find a place 
in the draft scheme, and as they were not heard on this point, there was 
C 
violation of principles of Natural Justice. Violation of Article I4 of the 
Constitution was also alleged. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: I. It cannot be said that there was discrimination nndor D 
Article I4 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the scheme permitted 
certain private operators in certain overlapping routes being given free 
permission to operate whereas Respondent No.I who operates inter-State 
stage carriage service is being subjected to 'corridor restrictions'. This 
point was not urged before the the Courts below. However, it is not pointed E 
out how the various routes are similar to each other. A reasonable etas~ 
sification is always permissible. It is the interest of the passengers which 
bas to be looked into in nationalisation of the routes and not necessarily 
the interest of the private operators. It is clear from the counter-affidavit 
filed on behalf of the appellants before the High Court that no case of 
violation of Article I4 of the Constitution was made out. [I4G-H; IS-A] 
F 
2. It is clear from the language of sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of 
the Motor Vehicles Act, I939 that the approved scheme is a scheme as 
published under Section 68-D(3) of the Act and its route is called the 
"notified route" and unless such scheme i.e. draft scheme itself relates to G 
any inter-State route, the condition of the proviso, of taking prior Central 
Government's approval will not arise. [14 C-D] 
S. Abdul Khader Saheb v. The Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, 
Bangalore and Ors., [1973) 2 SCR 925; K. Venkamma v. The Government of 
Andhra Pradesh and Ors., [1977] 3 SCR 562 andAdarsh Travels Bus Service H 
6 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A 
and Al!T. v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1985) Suppl. 3

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