LexC. P. C. MOTOR SERVICE, MYSORE versus THE STATE OF MYSORE AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 717 C. P. C. MOfOR SERVICE, MYSORE v. THE STATE OF MYSORE AND ANOTHER (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.) Stage Carriage-State Transport Undertaking-Scheme- VaTidity-Routes notified under scheme-Overlap between notified route and route left to private operatore-Effect-" Route", meaning of-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939), ss. 68C, 68F(2)(c)(iii). LTnder a scheme for taking over certain stage carriage services to the complete exclusion of private operators, which was approved and notified by the State of Mysore under the provisions of Ch. IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it "Was provided, inter alia: "The State Transport Undertaking will operate services to the complete exclusion of other persons (i) on all the notified inter-district routes except in regard to the portions of inter-district routes lying outside the limits of Mysore District, and also (ii) over the entire length of each of the inter-district route lying within the limits of Mysore Distdct." The appellants who were running stage carriage omnibuses of certain routes, some of which were inter-district and inter-State, challenged the validity of the scheme on the ground, inter a]ia, that between the routes which were taken over and some of the inter-district and inter-State routes which were left to the private operators, there was an overlap in the Mysore District, and that those routes which were not taken over including the portion of the route lying within the Mysore District should not be affected by the scheme, because "rou.te" meant a notional line running bet- ween two termini and following a distinct course. Held, that the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is that the word "route" meant not only the notional line but also the actual road over which the omnibuses run. Under the Act the route or area siand for the road on which the omnibuses run or portions thereof. Kondala Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, A. I. R. 1961 S. C. 82, relied on. Kelani Valley Motor 1'ransit Co., Ltd. v. Colombo Ratnapura Omnibus Co., Ltd. [1946] A. C. 338, explained and distinguished, In the present case, in view of the fact that the scheme reserved all th~ routes within the Mysore District 10 the State Transport Undertaking, the private operators would not be able to ply their omnibuses on that sector and even thoac DeumNr 1. 1961 C. P. C. M11or Snvic1, M:1sor1 •• Tiu S'4.t1 of M,Jor1 H~W.J. 718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962) SUPP. routes which were in•.cr-diSlrict oprn to th<m would stand pro lanto cut down to only that portion l•hich Jay oui.ide the Mysore District. Nilkanth Prasad v. The State of Bihar, [1962] Supp. I S. C R. 717, followed. C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals No. 180 of 1961. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order <lated January 30, 1961, of the Mysore High Court, in Writ Petition No. 1326 of 1961.1. 8. 1'. Desai, B. R. L. Iyengar and K. P. Bliat, for the Appellant. A. V. Viowanatlia Sastn", R. Gopal,akrislinan •md T. M. Sen, for tho respondent.I'. 1961. December 1. Tho Judgment of the Court was <leli vered by H!DAYATULLAH, J.-The appellants, C. P. C. Motor Se1vicc, Mysore, question a scheme approved and applied by the State of Mysore by itH Notifica- tion No. HD. 2G-0/T1\lP/60 in Gazette (Extraordinary) on Novemb<>r 10, llJ60. They had unbucccssfully moved tho High Court under Art. 226 nf Constitu- tion, and the present appeal is filed with the special leave of this Court. The appellants were running stage tarriagc omnibu~es (Jn 18 routes, and 14 such routes arc inter- District. On ~eptember 21, 1960, the second res- pondent, who is tho General Manager of the State Transport Undertaking, published a tentative sohcme for taking over stage carriage services over 64 routes, which were shown in a schedule to the Notification, to the oomplete exclusion of private operators. The action was taken under Chap. IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, inserted by s. 62 of Act 100 of 1956. Objecti1ms were duly filed by the appel- lants, which were heard by the Chief Minister, who was the authority to bear tho objections under the Rules, and they were disposed of by his order dated .. .. (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 719 November 7, 1960. The scheme was approved with some modifications, and it was published a.long with the order in the Notification, to which we have al
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.