1985 (10) TMI 272 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a private operator with a permit to ply a stage carriage over another route but which has a common overlapping sector with the nationalised route can ply his vehicle over that part of the overlapping common sector if he does not pick up or drop passengers on the overlapping part of the route? Held that - Unable to see any merit in any of the Civil Appeals since none of the schemes placed before us contain any saving clause in favour of operators plying or wanting to ply stage carriages on common sectors. On the other hand we found that invariably there is a clause to the following effect No person other than the State Government Undertaking will be permitted to provide road transport services on the routes specified in paragraph 2 or any part thereof . In the face of a provision of this nature in the scheme totally prohibiting private operators from plying stage carriages on a whole or part A of the notified routes it is futile to contend that any of the appellants can claim to ply their vehicles on the notified routes or part of the notified routes. All the appeals and Special Leave Petitions are therefore dismissed with costs which we quantify at 2, 500 in each. All the interim orders of this court which enabled the appellants to operate their vehicles on notified routes or part of notified routes or which enabled the appellants to apply for and obtain permits to 80 operate with or without the so- called corridor restrictions are hereby vacated. Appeals and Petitions dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Nationalisation of routes under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. Private operators plying on overlapping sectors of nationalised routes.
3. Interpretation of the term "route" under the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. Validity and effect of "corridor restrictions" for private operators.
5. Public interest and inconvenience to the travelling public.
6. Reconciliation of provisions between Chapter IV and Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
7. Supersession of schemes by different State Transport Undertakings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nationalisation of Routes under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act:
The judgment primarily addresses the conflict arising from nationalisation of routes under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court emphasized that the State Transport Undertaking (STU) may initiate a scheme for providing an efficient, adequate, economical, and properly coordinated road transport service in the public interest. The scheme may exclude other operators partially or completely. The process involves publishing the scheme, inviting objections, and considering modifications before final approval.

2. Private Operators Plying on Overlapping Sectors of Nationalised Routes:
The court examined various appeals where private operators sought to ply their vehicles on routes overlapping with nationalised routes, provided they observed "corridor restrictions" (not picking up or dropping passengers in the overlapping sectors). The court held that once a route is nationalised, private operators cannot ply their vehicles on the notified route unless explicitly allowed by the scheme.

3. Interpretation of the Term "Route" under the Motor Vehicles Act:
The court clarified that the term "route" includes every part of the highway traversed by a motor vehicle between two termini. The introduction of Section 2(28A) defining "route" as a physical line of travel dispelled the earlier confusion between "route" and "highway." The court rejected the argument that only the termini should be considered, emphasizing that the entire highway between the termini forms the route.

4. Validity and Effect of "Corridor Restrictions" for Private Operators:
The court found that "corridor restrictions" are often misused to circumvent nationalisation schemes. It emphasized that private operators cannot claim the right to ply on nationalised routes merely by observing corridor restrictions. The court stressed that the scheme's terms must explicitly allow such operations, which was not the case in the appeals before it.

5. Public Interest and Inconvenience to the Travelling Public:
The court acknowledged the inconvenience to the travelling public if they had to change services due to nationalisation. However, it emphasized that the State Transport Undertaking and the Government must consider and address such inconveniences when formulating and approving schemes. The court suggested that schemes could include clauses to exempt existing operators on common sectors or incorporate conditional clauses to minimize public inconvenience.

6. Reconciliation of Provisions between Chapter IV and Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act:
The court rejected the argument that provisions of Chapter IV and Chapter IV-A should be reconciled to allow private operators to ply on overlapping routes. It highlighted Section 68-B, which gives overriding effect to Chapter IV-A over Chapter IV, ensuring that nationalisation schemes take precedence.

7. Supersession of Schemes by Different State Transport Undertakings:
The court dismissed the argument that a later scheme by the Madhya Pradesh State Transport Undertaking could supersede an earlier scheme by the Uttar Pradesh State Transport Undertaking. It maintained that schemes by different states cannot override each other.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all appeals and special leave petitions, upholding the nationalisation schemes that prohibited private operators from plying on notified routes or parts thereof. It vacated all interim orders allowing private operators to operate on nationalised routes with or without corridor restrictions. The court emphasized the need for careful consideration of public interest and minimal inconvenience to the travelling public when formulating and approving nationalisation schemes.