LexSTANDARD MOTOR UNION PVT. LTD. versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
<164 STANDARD MOTOR UllilON PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. July 30, 1968 [R. S. BACl!AWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J Motor Vc/1ic/cs Act, (4 of 1939), Ss. 68C, 68D am! 68E-Schcme .·1ationc.lising route overlapped by other route operated by private opera- 1ors-Sche111e if of co111plete exclusion or par.rial exclusion-Scheme modi- /;~·d lViflrout expressly ·n1odifying earlier sc:hc1nc-Validi1_.,.·. Kerala ;\1oror Ve/zicles (State Transport Undertaking) Rules, 1960 r. 3- 'I'llc rc1;pond\!nt State approved a scht:mc in forru II for nationalisation of certain specific routes after complying y,·ith the provisions of ss. 68C and 68D of the Motor \'chicles Act, 1939. The scheme excluded all private o~r;1to'rs from the notified routes. The notified rou1es formed part of high\\·ays, having common road sectors and private operators con- tinued to operate on the highways. The appellant unsuccessfully filed writ petition in the High Court to quash the scheme. In appeal to this Court, the appellant challenged the validity of the schc-me on the grounds that (i) the scheme \Vas a complete excluo;ion scheme and should have been in form I and us it was in form II it was in contravention of Ruic 3 of the Kerala lllotor Vehicles(State Transport Undertaking) Rules, 1960 read \Vith s. 68C of the Act; and (ii) since there were earlier schemes. they could not be modified by the impugned scheme \\ithout complying "'·ith the provisions of s. 68E. Dismissing the ~1ppeal, thi5 Court : HELD: (i) From the language of s. 68C and r. 3 it appears that a complct-;! exclusion scheme in relation to any area of route would be a scheme v.·hicb cornplerely excludes the existing road services. of private operators on the area or route in question. 1·he route includes the highway over it runs. If other existing services are allo\\·cd to continue over a pan of the high\vay relatiilg to the notifi~d route, the scheme is not one of complete exclusion. The irnrugncd scheme di<l not exclude the road transport services of other cxbting routes which ovcrlapred many sectors of the high\vays relating to the notified routes. In spite of the scheme the puhlic could get ~rvice'i on the common road sectors from the private ,operators who continued to operate the high\v,1ys. 1·herefore, the scheme wa<; not in complete exclusion of exi-;ting road transpon services in respect of notified routes and was not required to be in form I. [466 G-H. 467 DJ Nilka11th Prasad & Ors. "· State of Bi/iar. [1962) Suppl. 1 S.C.R. 728 at 737: Kanda/a Rao v. Andhra Pradesh S.T.C. Corporation, A.J.R. 1961 S.C. 82, followed. (ii) On the promulgation of the new scheme the earlier schemes stood modified pro tanto. As the procedure laid down in ss. 68C and 680 were followed the conditions of s. 68 \Vere satisfied. S. 68E does not require that the ncv.· scheme should expressly say that it cancels or modi- fies the earlier schemes. [467 GI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 921 of 1968. Appeal by specii;·, leave from the judgment and order dated January 8, I 968 of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No. 79 of 1967. A B .. c D • E F G II A B -. c D E , F G H .. MOTOR UNION v. KERALA (Bachizwat, J.) 465 S. V. Gupte and A. S. Nambiar, for the appellan<. Sarjoo Prasad and M. R. K. Pillai for respondent No. 1. C. M. Kuruvilla, Sardar Bahadur, Vishnu Bhadur Saharya Yougindra Khushalani, for respondent No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by· Bacbawat, J'. The appellant challenges the scheme ol nationalisation of road transport services in respect of 9 routes in the mstricts of Emakulam and Kottayam. Chapter IV A ol the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 deals with nationalisation of road transport services. Section 68C provides for the preparation and publication of a draft scheme of nationalization of road transport services in general or any particular class of such service in rela- tion to any area or route or portion thereof whether to the exclu- · sion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise. Section 680 provides for the filing of objections of persons affected by the scheme, for the consideration of the objections by the govern- ment, for modification or aPProval of the scheme by the govern- ment and for publication of the approved or modified scheme. Section 68E provides that a scheme finally settled under sec. 680 may at ~my time be cancelled or modified by the State
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.