Madhya Pradesh State... v. Regional Transport A..., Madhya Pradesh High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Misc. Petn. No. 337 of 1968

Attorney(S)

For Petitioner : K.A.Chitale and V.S.Dabir
For Respondent : M.N.Phadke and R.K.Tankha

Judges

P.V Dixit, C.J
G.P Singh, J.

Acts

Rule 3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles (State Transport Undertaking) Rules, 1960. Rule 3
Sections 68-B and 68-F of the Motor Vehicles Act.
SECTION 64 MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
Section 68-F (2)
Section 68-C
Section 68-B
Section 68-F,
Section 63-B,

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was filed by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (the Corporation) challenging an order of the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Rowa, dated 17 June 1968. The impugned order granted one stage carriage permit each to the respondents, M/s. Ramgopal Satyanarayan and M/s. Viswanath Prasad Ramgopal, for the route Rewa to Pendra via Shahdol, Burhar and Amarkantak.

The route Rewa–Shahdol was a notified route in Scheme No. 50 made under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and, by Clause (5) of the approved scheme, was reserved for exclusive operation by the State Transport Undertaking (the Corporation). The permits granted to the respondents contained a condition restricting setting down or picking up passengers on the Rewa–Shahdol sector. The Corporation contended that because Rewa–Shahdol was reserved for the Corporation's exclusive operation, no permit covering that route or any portion of it could be granted by the Regional Transport Authority. The respondents contended that a proper construction of Scheme No. 50 showed Rewa–Shahdol was not a route of exclusive operation and so permits could be granted.

The scheme's draft included Clause (5) (exclusive operation) and Clause (7) (listing permits to be cancelled/curtailed). The Special Secretary of the State Government modified the draft on 9 February 1967, removing from Clause (7) permits which only partly overlapped Rewa–Shahdol so as to avoid discrimination; the modified, final Scheme No. 50 was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette on 24 February 1967. The approved scheme retained Clause (5). The approved scheme had been the subject of litigation (Allied Transport Co. v. State of M.P.), and a consequence of modification and earlier orders was that certain partly overlapping permits were allowed to continue until expiry.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Regional Transport Authority had jurisdiction to grant stage carriage permits that covered the Rewa–Shahdol sector (a route reserved for exclusive operation under Scheme No. 50), even if such permits contained conditions intended to make them ineffective on that sector.
Whether the character of Scheme No. 50 as a scheme of complete exclusion in respect of the Rewa–Shahdol route was affected by the continued existence (until expiry) of certain permits that only partly overlapped the reserved sector.
Whether the existence of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act precluded the High Court from entertaining the petition under Article 226 where the impugned order was alleged to be in excess of jurisdiction.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's (Corporation) Arguments

The Rewa–Shahdol route was a notified route reserved for the exclusive operation of the State Transport Undertaking under Clause (5) of Scheme No. 50 made under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Because the route was reserved for exclusive operation, the Regional Transport Authority had no power to grant any permit covering that route or any portion of it, irrespective of any restrictive condition included in such permits.

Respondents' Arguments

On a proper construction of Scheme No. 50, Rewa–Shahdol was not a route of exclusive operation; because certain partly overlapping permits were allowed to continue by the modifications and judicial orders, the scheme should be treated as one of partial, not complete, exclusion.
Reference was made to Section 68-C and to the authority of the Supreme Court in Standard Motor Union Private Ltd. v. State of Kerala for the proposition that if existing services are allowed to continue over part of a notified route, the scheme is not one of complete exclusion.
It was further urged that the RTA's order was appealable under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and therefore the High Court should refrain from interference under Article 226.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Allied Transport Co. v. State of M. P. (M.P. No. 261 of 1967 D/30-7-1968)	Described the effect of challenges to the approved Scheme No. 50 and the treatment of permits that partly overlapped the notified route.	The Court noted that this challenge resulted in permitting certain partly overlapping permits to continue; the effect was part of the factual background showing that such permits were allowed to stand until expiry, but did not alter the exclusive character of the Rewa–Shahdol route in Clause (5).
Baluram v. State of M. P., 1967 MPLJ 539 = AIR 1967 Madh Pra 130	Held that a permit not mentioned in the proposed (draft) scheme for cancellation or modification could not be included for cancellation/modification in the final approved scheme.	The Court relied on this principle to explain why the Special Secretary removed a class of permits from Clause (7) of the scheme; this removal did not, however, affect Clause (5)'s exclusive reservation for Rewa–Shahdol.
Standard Motor Union Private Ltd. v. State of Kerala, Civil Appeal No. 921 (N) of 1968 D/30-7-1968 = AIR 1969 SC 273	Observation: "If other existing services are allowed to continue over a part of the highway relating to the notified route, the scheme is not one of complete exclusion." (in context of Rule 3, Kerala Motor Vehicles (State Transport Undertaking) Rules, 1960)	The Court distinguished this decision as being made in the context of statutory forms under Kerala rules (Rule 3). It held that the observation did not decide the point in the present case and that Scheme No. 50 remained a scheme of complete exclusion regarding Rewa–Shahdol, subject only to the temporary continuation of certain permits till expiry.
H. C. Narayanappa v. State of Mysore (1960) 3 SCR 742 = AIR 1960 SC 1073	Established that a scheme under Chapter IV-A has the force of law and that an approved scheme is an 'order' within the meaning of Section 68-B.	The Court used this authority to conclude that Scheme No. 50, being an approved scheme, has the force of law and operates notwithstanding anything inconsistent in Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act; thus the scheme's exclusivity must be given effect.
Mysore S. R. T. Corporation v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1968 Mys 1 (FB)	Principle that a permit on a sector of road which is a route of complete exclusion cannot be validly granted even if accompanied by restrictions making it ineffective on that sector.	The Court applied this rule to hold that the permits granted covering the Rewa–Shahdol sector were unauthorized and must be quashed despite any restrictive condition.
C. P. C. Motor Service, Mysore v. State of Mysore, 1962 Supp 1 SCR 717 = AIR 1966 SC 1661	Authority for the proposition that a "route" or "area" in Chapter IV-A means the actual road over which omnibuses run, not a mere notional line between points.	The Court cited this precedent to support its conclusion that the Rewa–Shahdol sector is the actual road and cannot be removed from the effect of the scheme by recharacterising the route between different end-points.
Nilkanth Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp 1 SCR 728 = AIR 1962 SC 1135	Similar principle regarding the meaning of "route" or "area" under Chapter IV-A.	Used to reinforce the interpretation that the route includes the actual road and that permits cannot evade the scheme by redefining terminal points to include the reserved sector.
Roshanlal Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1965-1 SCR 841 = AIR 1965 SC 991	Another authority on the meaning of "route" as the actual road over which buses run under Chapter IV-A.	The Court relied on this authority alongside others to conclude a permit cannot lawfully cover a sector reserved to the Corporation by Scheme No. 50.
M. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Bairagarh v. Regional Transport Authority, Indore (M. P. No. 352 of 1968 D/27-11-1968) = AIR 1969 Madh Pra 182	Principle that a scheme cannot be evaded by including a sector of a reserved road between different terminal points and thereby giving the route a different character.	The Court cited this decision to support the conclusion that the Rewa–Shahdol sector cannot be made subject to a new permit simply by framing the permit between other points (for example, Rewa–Pendra) that include the reserved sector.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded by first examining Scheme No. 50 and the amendments effected by the Special Secretary. Clause (5) of the approved scheme expressly reserved the Rewa–Shahdol route for exclusive operation by the State Transport Undertaking. Clause (7) listed permits to be cancelled or modified; the Special Secretary removed from Clause (7) a class of permits that only partly overlapped the Rewa–Shahdol route to avoid discrimination (a change reflected in the final published scheme). The effect of that change and of earlier judicial intervention was that certain partly overlapping permits were allowed to continue until their expiry.

The Court analyzed whether that temporary continuance converted the scheme into one of partial exclusion. It considered the respondents' reliance on Section 68-C and the Supreme Court's observations in Standard Motor Union (which equated continuation of existing services over part of a notified route with partial exclusion). The Court distinguished that authority as being grounded in the particular statutory rule-forms applicable in Kerala (Rule 3), and held that in the present context Scheme No. 50 remained a scheme of complete exclusion in respect of Rewa–Shahdol despite the temporary allowance for certain permits to continue until expiry.

Legally, the Court emphasized that an approved scheme under Chapter IV‑A has the force of law and is an "order" under Section 68‑B; consequently it operates notwithstanding anything inconsistent in Chapter IV of the Act (citing H. C. Narayanappa). Section 68‑F imposes on Regional Transport Authorities the duty to give effect to an approved scheme and permits them to refuse renewal, cancel, or modify permits when necessary to do so. Although Section 68‑F does not expressly state a prohibition on granting new permits, the Court observed that the statutory power to grant permits (in Chapter IV) is limited by Section 63‑B insofar as a grant would be inconsistent with an approved scheme.

The Court further clarified the meaning of "route" under Chapter IV‑A by reference to authorities holding that a route denotes the actual road over which omnibuses run. On that basis, the Court concluded that the Rewa–Shahdol sector cannot be excluded from the effect of the exclusive reservation by framing a permit between more distant terminal points (e.g., Rewa–Pendra) that include the reserved sector. Quoting and applying Mysore S.R.T. Corporation v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, the Court held that a permit covering a sector which is the subject of complete exclusion cannot be validly granted even if conditioned to be ineffective on that sector.

Applying these principles to the facts, the Court found that the permits granted to the respondents did in fact cover the Rewa–Shahdol sector and were therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority. The Court concluded that the impugned grants were in excess of the RTA's authority and must be quashed.

On the respondents' submission that the order was appealable under Section 64 and thus the High Court should not intervene under Article 226, the Court reiterated that the availability of an alternative remedy does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction. The exercise of that jurisdiction is discretionary, but where the impugned order is patently in excess of jurisdiction the writ jurisdiction will be appropriately exercised; accordingly the Court declined to refuse relief on the ground of availability of an appeal.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The petition is allowed and the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 17 June 1968 is QUASHED. The Court held that the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to grant stage carriage permits that covered the Rewa–Shahdol sector, which was reserved under Clause (5) of Scheme No. 50 for exclusive operation by the State Transport Undertaking.

Immediate consequences and orders:

The permits granted to the respondents, being in excess of the Regional Transport Authority's authority, were quashed.
The petitioner (the Corporation) was awarded costs of the petition against respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Counsel's fee was assessed at Rs. 100.
The amount of security deposit was ordered to be refunded to the petitioner.

The opinion does not state any broader novel precedent being laid down; the decision applies existing statutory provisions and previously decided authorities to quash the impugned permits and enforce the exclusivity of the approved scheme in respect of the reserved sector.

Show full summary ...

Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Bhopal v. Regional Transport Authority, Rewa And Others

1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation calls into question an order of the Regional Transport Authority, Rowa passed on 17th June, 1968 by which one stage carriage permit was granted to each of the respondents, M/s. Ramgopal Satyanarayan and M/s. Viswanath Prasad Ramgopal for the route Rewa to Pendra via Shahdol, Burhar and Amarkantak.

2. Rewa-Shahdol is a notified route in the scheme No. 50 made under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. This route under the scheme is reserved for exclusive operation of the Corporation. The route Rewa-Pendra covers the entire route Rewa-Shabdol and goes beyond upto Pendra. In the permits, that were granted to the respondents, a condition has been imposed that the operators

"will not set down passengers from Rewa and places between Rewa and Shahdol and at Shahdol and similarly on the return journey between Shahdol and Rewa they will not pick up passengers at Shahdol or thereafter."

The contention raised in this petition by the Corporation is that, as Rewa Shahdol is a route reserved for exclusive operation of the Corporation, no permit covering this route or any portion of it with whatever condition could be granted by the Regional Transport Authority. In answer, the learned counsel appearing for the respondonts, in whose favour the permits were granted, contended that on a proper construction of the scheme No. 50, it would appear that Rewa Shahdol was not a route of exclusive operation and therefore, there was no bar for granting any permit on this route.

3. To appreciate the rival contention, we mustt notice the provisions of the scheme No. 50. The scheme as proposed, mentioned in Clause (2) the routes or arcus in respect of which the scheme was proposed. Clause (5) of the scheme stated that the State Transport Undertaking will exclusively provide all road transport services on Rewa Shahdol route. Clause (7) of the scheme was divided into three parts mentioning the permits that were to be cancelled, curtailed or made ineffective by virtue of the scheme. This scheme was considered by the Special Secretary on behalf of the State Government and was approved with certain modifications by his order passed on 9th February, 1967. The Special Secretary found that on permit for a route partly overlapping the route Rewa Shahdol was not mentioned in Clause (7) of the proposed scheme either for cancellation, curtailment or for being made ineffective. The Special Secretary, with a view to avoid discrimination of other permit-holders whose permits were also for such routes, which only partly overlapped the route Rewa Shahdol, removed all such permits from Clause (7). The final scheme as modified and approved by the Special Secretary was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated 24th February, 1967. In the approved scheme, Clause (5) of the scheme which mentioned Rewa Shahdol as a route reserved for exclusive operation of the Corporation was retained. This approved scheme was challenged in Allied Transport Co. v. State of M. P., M. P. No. 261 of 1967 D/- 30-7-1968 (MP).

It was found that some other permits, which were also for routes which only partly covered by the route of exclusive operation were mentioned in the list of permits to be cancelled and therefore, to bring uniformity, these permits were also allowed to stand. The effect of the modification by the Special Secretary and the order oil this Court in this writ petition was that permits for the routes, which were only partly covered by the route of exclusive operation, were allowed to continue. It is to be noticed that in Baluram v. State of M. P., 1967 MPLJ 539 = (AIR 1967 Madh Pra 130) it was held by this Court that a permit not mentioned in the proposed scheme for cancellation or modification could not be included lor cancellation or modification in the final scheme. It was because of this ruling, that the Special Secretary as also this Court had to remove a class of permits from the list of permits to be cancelled under the scheme, for certain permits of that class wore not shown in the draft scheme. However, the exclusive character of the route Rewa Shahdol was in no-way affected, as Clause (5) of the scheme was not modified. Because a class of permit-holders for the routes, which partly overlapped the route Rewa Shahdel were allowed to continue, it was argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that this feature of the scheme really made the route Rewa Shahdol a route of partial exclusion. Reference in this connection was made to Section 68-C and it was pointed out that a scheme may be "to the exclusion complete or partial of other persons" and that a scheme in which number of persons were allowed to continue cannot be held to be a scheme of complete exclusion, but must be held to be that of partial exclusion.

We were referred in this connection to a decision of the Supreme Court in Standard Motor Union Private Ltd. v. State of Kerala, Civil Appeal No. 921 (N) of 1968 D/- 30-7-1968 (SC) = (AIR 1969 SC 273 where the following observations occur:

"If other existing services are allowed to continue over a part of the highway relating to the notified route, the scheme is not one of complete exclusion."

The observations of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case were made with reference to the forms prescribed under Rule 3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles (State Transport Undertaking) Rules, 1960. Rule 3 provided

"that every proposed scheme shall be in form No. 1 when it was in complete exclusion of existing road transport services and in form No. 11 when it was in partial exclusion of existing road transport services"

. It was in the context of these rules that it was held that, as existing road transport services on a sector of a route covered by the scheme were allowed to continue, the scheme was not one of complete exclusion and should not have been in form No. I. The aforesaid case does not in any way decide the point that falls for our decision. The approved scheme No. 50 with which we are dealing, is a scheme of complete exclusion in respect of Rewa Shahdol route subject to this tbat existing partially overlapping permits are allowed to continue till their expiry, as they have been omitted from Clause (7) of the scheme. But that is only a temporary phase and the scheme, subject to the continuance of the permits till their expiry yet remains a scheme of complete exclusion in respect of Rewa Shahdol route as is abundantly clear from Clause (5) which expressly says that the State Transport Undertaking will alone have the right to ply stage carriages on that route. After these permits expire, it would be the duty of the Regional Transport Authority under Section 68-F (2) to refuse to entertain applications for their renewal to the extent, the renewal of the permits may bo inconsistent with Clause (5) of the scheme

4. The question whether the Regional Transport, Authority could grant permits for a route which covered the entire sector of the road Rewa Shahdol and went beyond it must be decided on a consideration of the scheme and Sections 68-B and 68-F of the Motor Vehicles Act. A scheme made under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act has the force of law; H. C. Narayanappa v. State of Mysore (1960) 3 SCR 742 at p. 752=(AIR 1960 SC 1073 at p. 1078). Further, as a scheme is finally made by an order of the State Government approving it, it is also an 'order' within the meaning of that word as it occurs in Section 68-B and in terms of that section has effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter IV of the Act. Under Section 68-F, it is the duty of every Regional Transport Authority to give effect to the scheme and for that purpose it may refuse to entertain any application for the renewal of any permit, cancel any existing permit, or modify the terms of any existing permit. This section does not expressly deal with the prohibition to grant an application for a permit. The power to grant permits is contained in the provisions of Chapter IV, but in view of Section 63-B, that power would be affected in so far as grant of a new permit would be inconsistent with the provisions of an approved scheme. When the scheme expressly provides that the State Transport Corporation will have the exclusive right to ply buses on Rewa Shahdol route, it would be wholly inconsistent with the scheme if a new permit is granted covering, in whatever terms, the route Rewa Shahdol.

A route or area in Chapter IV-A or in any scheme made under that chapter does not merely mean the notional line between two points but the actual road over which the omnibuses run: C. P. C. Motor Service, Mysore v. State of Mysore, 1962 Supp 1 SCR 717=(AIR 1966 SC 1661); Nilkanth Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp 1 SCR 728=(AIR 1962 SC 1135), Roshanlal Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1965-1 SCR 841=(AIR 1965 SC 991). The route Rewa Shahdol thus includes the road between Rewa and Shahdol and the scheme cannot be evaded by including this sector of the road or any portion of it between two other points and thus giving it a colour of a new route: M. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Bairagarh v. Regional Transport Authority, Indore, M. P. No. 352 of 1968 D/- 27-11-1968=(AIR 1969 Madh Pra 182). In our opinion, the Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction whatsoever to grant a stage carriage permit with authority to ply any stage carriage with whatever restrictions on Rewa Shahdol sector of the Road, as that would be inconsistent with Clause (5) of the approved scheme No. 50. A permit on a sector of the road, which under the scheme is a route of complete exclusion, cannot be granted even with the restriction that the permit will be ineffective on that sector, Mysore S. R. T. Corporation v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1968, Mys 1 (FB). The permits granted to the respondents cover Rewa Shahdol sector of the road and being in excess of the authority of the Regional Transport Authority must be quashed.

5. It was however urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that the order of the Regional Transport Authority was appealable under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, no interference should be made under Article 226. It is well settled that a provision for an alternative remedy does not take away the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in inappropriate cases. The question is mainly of the discretion to be exercised by this Court. In the instant case, the impugned order being patently in excess of jurisdiction, we think that it would not be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse interference on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy to go up in appeal against the impugned order.

6. The petition is allowed. The order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 17th June, 1968 is hereby quashed.

The petitioner will have costs of this petition from respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

Counsel's fee Rs. 100/-. The amount of security deposit will be refunded to the petitioner.

Madhya Pradesh State... v. Regional Transport A...