Sarjoo Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.

**B .** ### c **D•** **F** **G** **H** ... **A** ' # 661 SARJOO PRASAD SINGH _v._ THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. _September_ 22, 1976 [A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. N. SHINGHAL, **JJ.]** _Nationalisation scheme_ _of_ _Bus Routes under_ s. 68C _of_ _the Motor_ _Vehicles_ _Act,_ _1939-Form_ _A under.Rule 94A_ _of_ _the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules read_ _with Schedule II serial No._ 4·, 5 _and_ _6-lnterpretation_ _of-Whether_ _it envisages_ _compulsory existence_ _of_ _private operators side by side with the State operation._ _Motor Vehicles Act,_ 1939, _Section_ _68D-Scope_ _of-Whether there should be_ _a finding on each and every separate objection raised._ _Monopoly_ _of_ _bus_ _routes-Whether_ _permitting the existing private operators_ _to operate till the date_ _of_ _expiry_ _of_ _their permits creates a monopoly._ _Practice and_ _procedure-Further_ _plea taken_ _in_ _the affidavit-rejoinder to_ th~ _writ petition shall not be allowed to be agitated._ Fifteen routes including the route Ranchi-DaHonganj _via_ Knru was nationalised by a scheme by the respondent State as per gazette notification dated September 13, 1972. The scheme concerned _inter_ _a/.ia_ the area and the ronte between Ranchi and Daltonganj including Ranchi, Kuru and Chandwa Daltonganj, being a rural service. The scheme permitted the existing private operators to continue till the expiry of their permits. The appellants challenged the scheme by way of an application under Art. 226 in the Patna High Court which **was disn1issed** _**in**_ _**lin1ine.**_ Dismissing the appeal by special leave the Court, HELD : (I) Rule 94A speaks of particulars of scheme proposing modification of an approved scheme prepare(\ by the Transport Corporation. It is wrong to read seriaL Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in schedule II in Form A which mentions the number of State carriages, scheduled to operate in each route by private operators and by State Transport Undertaking and the num:Jer of daily trips scheduled in each route by both these operators, to suggest that e·<en though " ·the route is nationalised, there must be private operators. The J\irm is general. There may be on the same route both private operators and State Transport or there may be only private operators or there may be only State Transport. The form does not su.gllest tljat ~vrn \l1m;~h the route is nationalised, there must be private operators, ·[{)62. f-=-=Q, 663 A~BJ (2) Section 681) of the Motor Vehicles Act stat~s .that the State G<:>vernment may, after co.nsidering the. objections and after g1.vmg an opportunity to the objector or his represenl!'hves and the. representativ7s of the State Transport Undertaking to be heard m the matter, 1f they so desire, approve or mod~fy .the scheme. No. finding of fact is necessary on each and every separate ob1ect1011. . - [663 D-E, G] _Capital Multi Purpose Co-operative Society Bhopal and_ _othas_ v. _State_ _of_ _Madhya Pradesh_ [1967] 3 SCR 329, followed. (3) No monopoly is conferred on the private operators who were allowed to continue to operate. Allowing them to operate .means they. were allowed to continue to operate in accordance with the permits. Operat10n after the expiry of the cm:rent permits would depend on the policy of the Government whether there would be any renewal and if there would be any renewal, that should be in accordance witfi Jaw. [663 H, 664 Al ( 4) Fresh plea by way of an allegation in the affidavit rejoinder to the writ petit,ion when· the State had no opportunity to deal with such allegation cannot. be allowed to be agitated. [664B] iB ## c D E F G H 662 SUP.REME COURT REPORTS [1977] 1 S.C.R. CIVIL APPELLATE Jurusn1cnoN : Civil Appeal No. 742 of 1974. Appeal _by_ Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 15.2.1974 of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 215/74. _A. B. N. Sinha, K._ _K._ _Sinha, K. N. Deshav, S. K. Sinha_ and _Ugra_ _Sankar Prasad_ for the appellant. _Pramod Swarup,_ for respondent No. 1 _L._ _N._ _Sinhg, Sol. Genl.,_ _B._ _P._ _Singh_ and _A. K._ _Srivastava,_ for _D._ _Goburdhan,_ for respondent N_o. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered l;>y . RAY C. J.-This appeal by special leave is from the judgment dated 15 February 1974 of the Patna High Court. The High Court dismissed _in_ _limine_ !he application of the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellant challenged the scheme framed under section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 published in the Bihar Gazette on 13 September 1972. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation published a scheme for nationalisation of fifteen routes including the route Ranchi-Daltonganj _via_ Kuru. The scheme concerned _inter_ _alia_ the area and the route between Ranchi and Daltonganj. The area included Ranchi, Kuru, Chandwa Daltonganj. This is a rural service. The scheme stated that private operators would be ·able to run their buses till the expiry of their current permits and no private bus would be operated by the private operators after the expiry of their permits. The scheme further provided that the Government bus operators would operate in the area as shown in the Schedule. Counsel for the appellant contends first that the number of buses operated by private operators on part of the route were to be maintained in spit~ of the scheme of nationalisation. Reliance was placed on Form A under Rule 94A of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules in support of the contention. Rule 94A speaks of particulars of scheme proposing modification of an approved scheme prepared by the Transport Corporation. In Schedule II at serial Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in Form A are mentioned the number of state carriages scheduled to operate in each route (a) by private operators and (b) by State Transport Undertaking; the number of daily trips scheduled in each route (a) by private operators and (b) by State Transport Undertaking; and the maximui:n and minimum number of stage carriages proposed to be operated in each route by the State Transport Undertaking to the exclusion of private operators. The contention of the !lppellant was that serial Nos. 4, 5 and 6 indicated that in spite of nationalization of route, private operators would be allowed to operate on part of the route. It was said that in the scheme no details about private operators had been given. It was also said that in the scheme the numbers of services run by the private operators and by the Corporatioi1 were wrongly given. It was said that 21 services were shown as run ##### • SARJOO PD. SINGH _v._ STATE Q.F BIHAR _(Ray, C.J.)_ 663 by the Corporation **and** that the Corporation was providing 42 trips. **A** The appellant contended that private operators ran 41 buses and the route needed more buses aggregating 51. . It is wrong to read serial Nos. 4, _5_ and 6 in Form A _ta_ suggest that even though the route is nationalised there must be private opera~ tors. The Form is general. There may be on the same route both private operators and State Transport, or there· may be only private **S** operators or there may be only State Transport. In the scheme the existence of private operators is specifically mentioned and it is further mentioned that they would continue to ply till the expiry of their current permits. We are unable to hold that even though the route is nationalised there must be private operators. The private operators under the scheme in the present case were allow- **C:** ed to continue during the currency of their permits. Whether they will be allowed to operate after the expiry of their permits, will depend upon the policy of the Government. After the expiry of the current permits if the policy will allow for renewal of permits of the private operators, such renewal will have to be in accordance with law. The scheme as modified and approved was published on 14 Jan- **D** nary 1974. All the details are there. The second objection of the appellant was that the Minister did . not give any reason in dealing with the objections of the appellant. Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act states that the State Government may, after considering the objections and after giving an opportunity to the objector or his representatives and the representatives of the State Transport Undertaking to be heard in the matter, if they so d1~sire, approve or modify the scheme. The provisions of the section speak about the approval or modification of the scheme. The Minister heard the objections for 2 days. The order of the Minister dated 24 September 1973 states that the scheme covering Ranchi-Bero Gumla was modified and approved as follows : "The existing ~ervices operate<l by the private operators shall not be affected and they would continue to operate. No fresh permit shall be granted t? private ?perators and the Corporation shall ply only Express services on this route. The other schemes coverin"' Ranchi-Kuru-Chandwa-Daltonganj _via_ Benibad, (ii) Muzaffarpu~ . Motihari and (iii) Muzaffarpur-Darbhanga _via_ Benibad are approved." Approval and modification of the scheme indicates that the scheme is efficient and adequate. No finding of fact is necessary on each and every separate objection. See _Capital Multi Purpose Co-operative_ _Society Bhopal and Others_ v. _State_ _of,_ _Madhya Pradesh(')._ The third contention was that on the route Ranchi-Bero Gumla private operators were allowed to operate and thereby monopoly was conferred on them. The contention is wrong. No monoply is conferred on the private operators who were allowed to continue to **[!Iii..** (!) [1967] :; S.C.R. 329. **E** **F** **G** **H** .A .B 664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1977] 1 S.C.R. operate. It means they were allowed to continue to operate in accordance with the permits. Operation, after the expiry of current permits, would depend on the policy of the Government whether there would be any renewal and if there would be any renewal, that should be in accordance with law. The fourth contention was that the hearing concluded on 18 August, 1973 but the Government took into consideration letter dated 23 August 1973 written by the State Transport Corporation. This allegation was mentioned in the affidavit-rejoinder. The State had no opportunity to deal with the allegation. This allegation is not made in the writ petition. The appellant, therefore, cannot be allowed to agitate on that ground. All the contentions fail. The appeal is dismissed. Parties will pay and bear their own costs. ##### s. R. Appeal dismissed. #### •