ABDUL KHADER v. THE MYSORE REVENUE TRIBUNAL

**A** **B** ## **c** **D** **E** **G** 92S S. ABDUL KHADER SAHEB _v._ THE MYSORE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE & ORS. _November_ 9, 1972 [A. N. GROVER, K. K. MATHEW AND A. N. MUKHERJEA, JJ.] _Motor Vehicles Act_ (4 _of_ 1939). _s.68-D-Intra-State route, what is;_ _Nationalisation of_ _irttra_ _state_ _route-If_ _proviso_ _to_ _s._ 68·D(3) _applicable-_ _**Scheme**_ _**of nationalisation,**_ _**;j**_ _**prevails over inter-state**_ _**agreement-Scheme·**_ _**exciuding**_ _**all**_ _**operators except two**_ _**categories--Appellant**_ _**not**_ _**within·**_ _**exceptions-If**_ _**entitled to**_ _**pern1it**_ _**on**_ _**inter-state**_ _**route, when permit made·**_ _**ineffective**_ _**on**_ _**over-lapping portion.**_ _**Practice and Procedure-Revocation**_ _**of**_ _**special leave.**_ In .August 1964, the States of Mysore arid Andra Pradesh entered into a reciprocal agreement to introduce stage carriage services on the inter.State route from Bellary, in Mysore, to Manthralaya in Andhra Pradesh, _via_ Chintakunta, the border in Mysore State. By the Befiary scheme which was approved by the Mysore Government under s. 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and which came into force in May, 1964, it was provided that only the State Transport Undertakings will operate services on the route Bellary to Chintakunta to the complete· exclusion of other persons, except in regard to the portions of the inter· district routes lying outside the limits of Bellary district. The existing **permit-holders** **of inter-state** **routes** **were** **allowed** **to** **operate** **such** **inter-** State routes subject to the oondition that· their permit shall be rendered ineffective by the competent authority on the overlapping portion in the Bellary district. I_n the present case, the Regional Transport Authority called forapphcallons for the grant of a permit on the inter-State route in 1965 and the ap~llant w_as one of the applicants. The Mysore Revenue Appellant Tnbunal, · m appeal, granted the permit to the appellant with the condition that no passenger was to be picked up or set down on the portion of t~ r~ad overlapping the notified route, of the scheme (that IS Bellary to Chmtakunta). The High Cuurt in a writ petition did not agree with the view of the Tribunal that even under a scheme of total e~clusion from Bellary to Chintakunta border, a permit could be l~<ued m respect of the overlapping portion of the inter.State route by malc;:ng that permit ineffective on that portion, and remanded the matter to the State Transport Authority for reconsideration in accordance with law, Disn~iSM the appeal to this Court, #### H HELD : ( 1 j 'f!2ere is no scheme of nationalisation relating lo the· inter-State route r._"m !'ellary to Manthralaya and t~ Bellary scheme is confined only to the •nter.Sta.te .. routes, ~n~ of which i!I the BellaryChintakunta route, whose .termmu were within !he State. It could ~ 926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1973] 2 S.C.R. nationalised by the State of Mysore und,er the provisions of s.68-D even though t!iat portion overlaps the inter-State route from Bcllary to Ma.ithralaya. [~30 E-F; 931 CJ _B. H. Aswathanarayan Singh_ & _Ors._ v. _State of.Mysore_ & _Ors.,_ [1966) ! ·S.C.R .. 87, refmed to. (2) Since the scheme did not deal with an inter-State route at .a'I _no_ question of the applicability of the proviso to s.68-D( 3), which requires the pre11.ious approval of the Central Government arises. [930 DJ (3) A scheme of nationalisation approved under s. 68-D would prevail over an inter-State agreement in respect of an inter-State route. [929 G-H; 930 A-Bf _T._ _N._ _Raahunatha Reddy_ v. _Mysore State Transport_ _A111hority,_ [1970] 3 ·S. C. **R.** 780, followed. (4) In _Thippeswamy's_ _ca.ie_ (A.LR. 1972 S.C. 1674) it_ was held that according to the scheme all operators excepting those mentioned in the scheme a,.. excluded from the nationalised routes. **The** only two exceptions were with regard to inter-district operators and the _existing_ permit-holders on inter-State routes. Since the appellant did not fall within either of these two categories it was not possible to accede to the appellant's contention that bec~usc the scheme merely provides for partial **exclusion** **it** **was** **open to** **the** **authorities concerned to issue a permit** for the route overlapping the inter-state route. [929 E-GJ _Thipp'fwamy_ v. _The Mysore Appellate Tribunal,_ A.I.R. 19'72 !;.C. 1674, followed. (5) In the application for stay filed along with the application for special leave it was stated that ~pecial leave had been granted in _Thippeswamy-.,_ case, but, by the -lime the petitioo for special leave came up for hearing the appeal in Tbippeswamy's case had been dismissed. **But** **thjs** **fact** **was** **not** **ment.ioned** **to** **the** **Court.** **Ho\.\·cver,** **it** **was** **not** **a** **case** **for** **re\'ocation of special leave, because,** **there** w~s. **nothing** **to** **show** **that** **a** **reft:rcr,ce** **was** **made·** **tc ·** _**Thippeswaniv's**_ **casr** **in** ."trgu1ncnt~. **....,** **ht'n** special leave was grantee!. 1928 B-EJ C1v1L APPELLATE JuR1so1crroN : Civil Appeals Nos. 1400 and 1401 of 1972. Appeals by special leave fI:om the judgment and order dated February 29, 1972 of the Mysore High Court at Bangalore in Writ Petitions Nos. 2561 of 1968 and 272 of 1969. _M._ C. _Setalvad,_ S. S . _.Tava/i_ and G. _N._ _Rao_ for the appellants. _K. N._ _Bhatt_ for respondent No. 7. _L._ _N._ _Sinha,_ Solicitor-General of India, _Shyama/a Pappu_ and _**J.**_ _Ramamurthi_ for respondent No. 8. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GR.OYER, **J.** These appeals have been brought by special leave from a judgment of the Mysore High Court. The facts briefly are that in August 1964 the States of Mysore and Andhra Pradesh entered into a reciprocal agreement to introduce stage carriage services on the inter-State route from Bel!ary **A** **B** ## **c** **D** **E** **F** **G** **H** ABDUL KHADER v. MYSORE REVENUE TRIBUNAL _(Grover,_ _J.)_ 927 A B #### c 0 E # I F G H in Mysore State to Manthralaya in Andhra Pradesh _via_ Chinta-kun\a. In August 1965 the Regional Transport Authority, Bellary, called for applications for the grant of stage carriage permit for the aforesaid route. The appellant. respondents 7 and 8 and several others filed applications for the grant of a permit. After com plyin;; with the necessary formalities required under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Aot, 1939, hereinafter called the 'Act', the Regional Transport Authority granted pem1its to the appellant and respondent No. 7 for one trip each day at its meeting held in August 1966. By the time the Regional Transport Authority had issued the notification calling for the applications the scheme had been approved by the Government of Mysore The High Court disposed of the writ petition on the ground "When once on a route or a portion of the route there has been total exclusion of operation of stage carriage services by operators other than the State Transport Undertaking by virtue of a clause in an approved Scheme, the authorities granting permit under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, should refrain from grantiilg a permit contrary to the Scheme". The High Court Hid not agree with the view of the Revenue Appelfate Tribunal that even under a Scheme of total exclusion from Bellary to Chintakunta border a permit could be issued in respect of the overlapping portion of the inter-State route by making that u1~der s. 6_8-D of the Act. Under this scheme which was popularly known as the 'Bellary Scheme' and which came into force with effect frm}l May 7, 1964 a portion of the road in question, via, from Bellary to the district border (Chintakunta border) operators other than those mentioned in the scheme were totally excluded and only State Transport Undertaking could operate the services. The Mysor State R.oad Transport Corporation which was the State Transport Undertaking in Mysore, hereinafter called the 'State Corporation', B. Su_bba Rao, the appellant and certain other persons filed appeals before the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal. After hearing the appeals the Tribunal remitted the case to the Regional Transport Authority for a fresh disposal. Aggrieved by the remand order the appellant, the State Corporation and others filed appeals before the Mysore Revenne Appellate Tribunal. This Tribunal allowed the appeal of the <~ppellant in its entirety and granted him a permit for the interState route with the condition that no passenger was to be picked up or set down on the portion of the road overlapping the notified route of the Bcllary scheme. The appeals of others were dismissed. Two writ petitions were filed before the High Court, one by the State Corporation and ihe other by B. Subba Rao challenging the order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal. 928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] 2 S.C.R :permit ineffective. The High Court consequently directed a re.mand to the State Transport Authority to reconsider the matter and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Although in the special leave petition there was no mention of .a connected appeal which was pending in this Court, ~n the apph; A ## c D E F G H cation for stay, it was stated by the appellant-that special leave had 'been granted in the case _D. M. Thippeswamy._ v. _The. Mysore_ _Appellate Tribunal Bangalore_ & _Others(\)_ agaitist tile 3udgment of the Mysore High Court in which a similar view had been taken with regard to the scope and ambit of the Bellary scheme. It is .common ground ithat by the time the petition for special leave came up for hearing before this Court that appeal had been dismissed. This led to the State Corporation filing a petition for revocation of special leave (C.M.P. No. 7383/72) on the ground that the fact of the dismissal of Thippeswamy's appeal by this Court on May 4, 1972 had been suppressed at the time when the petition for special leave was argued. An affidavit has been filed by Mr. S. S. J avali advocate who had appeared at the special leave stage. He has stated that according to him Thippeswamy's case was not relevant as the facts there were different and no reference was called for or made to it in the arguments. It has also been pointed out that in that very case by a subsequent order dated September 29, 1970 certain clarifications have been made. This· it has been contended, now shows that the decision in that case was not apposite for the purpose of the present appeals. We do not consider that any case for revocation of the special leave has been made out and the prayer in that behalf is hereby deciined. 'Bellary Scheme' was approved under s. 68-D of the Act subject to certain modifications by the Mysore Government by a noti fication dated April 18, 1964. It was provided in the scheme that the State Transport Undertaking will operate services on all the routes to the complete exclusion of other persons except in re· gard to the portions of inter-district routes lying outside the limits of Bellary district. The existing permit-holders on inter-State routes could be allowed to operate such inter-State routes subject to the condition that their permits shall be rendered ineffective by the competent authority for the overlapping portion in the district of Bellary. In _Thippeswamy's_ case (supra) this very scheme came up for consideration. The question, however,. which arose was whether the appellant there was not an existing permit-holder when the State Corporation applied for a permit for the route in question. The following oJ:?servations were made on this point : "The question whether the 'Bellary Scheme' provides for the total exclusion of all operators on the nationalised (I) A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1674. .A ## c 0 E F G H ABDUL KHADER v. MYSORE REVENUE TRIB.UNAL _(Grover,_ _I.)_ 929 routes or it merely provides for partial exclusion is, in our opinion, wholly irrelevant. All that we have to see is what the~cheme says ? \\'horn does it exclude? It is quite plain from the language of the clause referred to earlier that all operators excepting thOSe mentioned therein are excluded from the nationalised routes. To the general exclusion made therein, there are two exceptions. The first one relates to inter-district operators and the second to existing permit holders on the inter-state routes. The appellant does not claim to come under the first exception. For the reasons already mentioned his case is not covered by the second exception". st~te. ro~tes. Mr. Setalvad d~s not __ claim that the appellant falls withm e1the; of these. categones. It 1s, therefore, not possible to accede !o his co~ten!10.n that because the scheme merely provides for partial exclus10n 1t 1s open to the authorities concerned to issue a permit for the route overlapping the inter-state route. . The next point on which a great deal of emphasis has been ##### !aid on. behalf of 0e appellant ·is that an inter-state route comes mto ex1sten~e by virtue of an agreement between the States thrc>ugh which the route passes. The main provisions in that respe:t are to be found in s. 63 of the Act. Any scheme of nationali sat10~ of a r?ute by a State. as approved under s. 68-D, cannot twernde the mter-state agreements in respect of the inter-state routes. This Court has in T: _N. Raghunatha Reddy_ v. _Mysore_ The argument of Mr. M. C. Setalvad for the appellant is that no decision was given in _Trippeswamy's_ case _(supra)_ that the Bellary scheme provides for a total exclusion of all operators on the n«tionalised routes. He has also sought to distinguish that case by pointing out that the controversy there was confined to the question whether the appellant was an existing permit holder on the inter-state route. It has further been stated that in the present case no permit has so far been issued to the State Corporation bec<.use it has failed to comply with certain provisions and in particular with the requirement of s. 20 of the Road Transport Corporations Act 1950. It may be that the facts are somewhat different here. The view which the High Court in the present case took was that after the Bellary Scheme had come into force the operators other than the State Transport Undertaking were totally excluded. In _Thippeswamy's_ case (supra) also it is clear from the portion already extracted from the judgment of this Court that according to the scheme all operators excepting those mentioned in the scheme are excluded from the nationalised routes. Th~ two exceptions which have been made are only with regard to the inter-district operators and the existing permit holders on inter· . The next point on which a great deal of emphasis has been ##### !aid on. behalf of 0e appellant ·is that an inter-state route comes mto ex1sten~e by virtue of an agreement between the States thrc>ugh which the route passes. The main provisions in that respe:t are to be found in s. 63 of the Act. Any scheme of nationali 930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] 2 s.c.R. _State Transport Authority_ ( [1] ) answered this question in the nega##### tive. It has been held that the inter-state agre.ement is not law and· to hold that an inter-state agreement overrides Chapter IV-A would be to completely disregard the provisions of s. 68:B of the Act. In other words a scheme of nationalisation approved under s. 68-D would prevail over an inter-state agreement 'in respect of an interstate route. Sub-section ( 3) of s. 68-D of the Act has also been relied upon by Mr. Setalvad. According to that provision the scheme as apprpved or modified shall be published in the official gazette and the same shall thereupon become final. The proviso, however, says that no such scheme which relates to any inter-State route shall be deemed to be an approved scheme unless it has been published in the official gazette with the previous approval of the Central Government. No scheme in the present case has been approved under the proviso relating to the inter-State route in question. We are unable to see how the proviso to s. 68-D(3) can be of any avail to the appellant. The aforesaid provision becomes material only when a scheme covers an inter-State rout.e. The Bellary scheme provides for nationalisation of an intra-State rot:te and not an inter-State route and the aforesaid.provision can ha,·e no applicability. Although respondent No. 7 has not appealed, counsel appearing for hi!Il has called attention to the observation~ of this Court in _B._ _H._ _Aswathanarayan Singh_ & _Orlzei's_ v. _State_ _of_ _My.sore_ & _Others(')_ that an inter-State route is one in which one of the terminii is in one State and the other in another State; Where both the terminii are in one State the question· of an inter-State route does not arise. If part of the scheme covers routes which continue beyond the State and connect various points in the State of Mysore with those in the other State it does not make the scheme one connected with inter-State route. It is sought to be argued from this that even if Bellary-Chintakunta route which is shown as item 34 in the Bellary Scheme has been nationalised it does not make the scheme one connected with inter-State route. Stress has been laid on the example given that the Grand Trunk Road runs from Calcutta to Amritsar and passes through many States and any portion of it within a State can be a route for purposes of stage carriage but that would not make such a route a part of an inter-State route even though .it lies O!l the road which runs through many St;;tes. The above nrgument can possibly have no validity so far as the present case is concerned. The scheme which was under con sideration in the decision relied upon was in respect of an intra (IJ [1970] 3 S.C.R. 780. (2) [1966] _1_ S.C.R. 87. A B #### _c_ D F G H A B ### c _D_ ABDUL KHADER V, MYSORE REVENUE TRIBUNAL _(Grover,_ J.) 931 str.te route. It appears to have been argued that as the scheme was concerned with an inter-state route the approval of_ the Central Government was necessary as required under the proviso to s. 680(3) of the Act. This Court held that since the terminii were within the State of Mysore the scheme did not deal with an interstate route at all and no question arose of the applicability of the proviso to s. 680(3). In the present case there is no sr.heme of nationalisation relating to tl;!e inter-state route from Bellary to Manthralaya. The Bellary Scheme is confined to the intra-state routes, one of those being the Bellary-Chintakunta route. It may be that that portion overlaps the inter-state route from Bellary to Manthralaya but so !orig as it is an intra-state route it could. be nationalised by the State of Mysore under the provisions of s. 680. That having been done the decision in _Thi11pes11·amy's_ _case_ ( [1] ) _(supra)_ will appositely apply. In the result the appeals fail and they are dismissed with costs to respondent No. 8. V.P.S. _Appeals_ _dismissed._ _8_ --L521Sup.C.J./73