MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus THE MYSORE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS.

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 493 · Decided: 17-05-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG, Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
493 
MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
v. 
THE MYSORE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS. 
May 17, 1974 
(M. H. BEG ANDY. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Ac,, Sec. 68C-Jnter-stare operator3 
wh~ther prohibited 
ireni plyins: vehicles on intra-state routes-lt1eani11~ of route 
and 
areu--
1 ntrepreta~io11 of sche111e-Con1plete exclusion lvhether can be implied. 
Certain Intra-state rcutes were nationalised under Chapter IV-A of' the Motor 
\'chicles A~t. There wei;e three approved schemes of nationalisation namely 
Anekal Scheme, Gulbarga Scheme and the Bangalore Scheme. Parts of these 
Intra-state routes over-lapped inter-state routes over which private transporters 
were granted permit9 to ply their vehicles on condition that they will neither 
pick up nor drop passengers on any overlapping parts of routes. 
The preamble to Anekal Scheme and Gulbarge Scheme do not state that 
the scheme is of a total exclusion. The preamble to the Bangalore Scheme. 
however, mentions the complete exclusion of all other operators from certain 
routes. The Anckal Scheme gives the te1mini with intern1ediate J---.Oints. 
The 
names of the Inter-Sta-te o~rators have not been 1nentioned in any of these three 
Schemes. The schemes show that the term "route'' is used in each scheme for 
'5ervices between two termini, 
The appellant Corporation objects to the permits granted to tho Inter-State 
transporters in so fai: as they cqvcr overlapping portions of Intra-state routes 
on the basis of three schemes. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : ( 1) There can be no doubt that the appellant corporation has 
power to frame a scheme under Section 68(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, pro-
viding that Road Transport Services in general or in any particular class, 
in 
Felation to any area or route ol portion thereof should be run and operated 
t)y the State Transport Undertaking whether to the exclusion, complete or 
partial of other persons or otherwise. This power includes the power to ex-
('}ude even inter-state motor operators altogether from a part of any notified 
route. 
[494GJ 
· 
(2) Section 68C howe,·er requires as a condition precedent to any exclusion 
of private operators that the scheme should give particulars of the nature of 
services proposed to be rendered. the area of route proposed to be covered 
and such oth~ particulars as may be prescribed. Each scheme has to be pub-
lished in the Official Gazette. A scheme finally emerging after opportunities 
arc given for objections by persons interested. 
(495B-C] 
(3) A scheme which totally excludes inter-state private operators fron1 
using any part of a notified route must make the intention to do that clear. 
The Act makes a distinction between notification of an area and of a route. 
An area may cover a number of routes. 
A route is not merely the physical 
~urface covered by the highway to be traversed, but connot·~<> the abstra:t concept 
of line of travel. A difference in the two termini \Vill make two routes different 
even if there is an overlappinp: surface of the road common to two routes. 
Unless a scheme clearly indicates that the user of e~ery portion of a highway 
covered by an intra-state notified "route" so conceived i'> prohibited. a·lso to an 
Inter-state motor vehic1e operator, who really plies on a different rouh~ inasmuch as 
his terinini are bound to be different from those of an intra-state rou~e, the inter-
5.tate op~ raters n1ay not be complete~y debarred from the user of the 
over-
hipping part of an inter-state route. 
A mere physical overlapping of the two 
is not enough to exclude the private inter-state operators by any necessary 
Implication. Such an exclusion must be made clear and unequivocal in the 
scheme. 
[496B. D. F·Hl 
494 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] l s.c.1,t. 
(4) The rules require that existing operators on each roui~ n1ust be named 
and the numbers of th~ir vehicles must be gi_ven before they could be deemed 
to be excluded from any part of a rgute. 
Unless their names are mentioned 
they cannot .come fonvard to object as persons i.~ffected. [497D-E] 
(.S) The Inter-state operators were not meant to be denied tbe use of the 
overlapping portions of routes covered by the scheme. Their names were not 
mentioned as required by the rules. 
The Anekal and Gulbarga schemes did 
not even talk of the complete exclusion. The Bangalore Scheme 
mentions 
complete e;q;lusion but this exclusion seemsr to be in respect of operators

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