Holding

A nationalised route identified as a ‘direct service’ under the notified scheme is exclusively for the State Transport Undertaking, and private operators cannot be permitted to ply on any overlapping portion of that route.

Summary

The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (the appellant) objected to the grant of stage‑carriage permits to private operators for a route that overlapped the Ranchi‑Chaibasa segment, which was a nationalised route under a notified scheme dated 1‑April‑1960. The State Transport Authority rejected the corporation’s objection, interpreting the bracketed words “direct service” in the scheme to allow private operators on longer or shorter routes that overlapped the nationalised segment. The corporation appealed to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and then filed a writ petition, both of which were dismissed. The Supreme Court examined whether the Patna High Court’s interpretation in Marwari Motor Service’s case was consistent with its own decision in Adarsh Travels, which held that private operators may traverse overlapping portions only if they do not pick up or drop passengers there. The Court held that the Ranchi‑Chaibasa route, being a “direct service” nationalised route, is exclusively for the State Undertaking and private operators cannot be permitted on any overlapping portion, thereby overruling the High Court’s view. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the three lower orders, and permitted the private operators to continue their existing permits only until 31 March 1991.

Issues considered

Whether a private operator may be granted a stage‑carriage permit for a route that overlaps a nationalised route designated as a ‘direct service’ in the notified scheme.
Whether the interpretation of ‘direct service’ given in Marwari Motor Service’s case is consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Adarsh Travels.
Whether the State Transport Authority and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal erred in rejecting the corporation’s objection and granting permits to private operators.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 2(28-A), s. 68-0(3), s. 68-C, s. 68-D(2), s. 68-D(3)

Subjects

Motor Vehicles Actstage carriage permitsnationalised routedirect serviceroute definitioncorridor restrictionspublic transportstate undertakingprivate operatorstatutory interpretation

Judgment

BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
v. A
~-:--· STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 22, 1991

[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K. RAMASWAMY JJ.] B

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: Stage Carriage permits-Grant of-
~ ~Private. Operators-:Bh~rkunda-Chaibasa route-1:~rt of route Ranchi
' .:._Chaibasa a nationalised route covered by notified Scheme under
section 68-D(3)-0bjections by State Road Transport Corporation
rejected and permits granted to two private operators.
c
Section 2(28-A)-Definition of word 'route'-Notified Scheme
dated 1.4.1960 covering 7 routes including Ranchi-Chaibasa route-
·--y Bracketed word 'direct service' used only in Serial No. 7 showing
· Ranchi-Chaibasa route-Interpretation of words 'direct service'- D
Whether the view taken by High Court in Marwari Motor Service's case
is any more relevant in view of the decision of this Court in Adarsh
Travels' case.

The State Transport Authority, Ribar invited applications for
grant of Stage Carriage permits for the route named, Bhurkhunda- E
>--. Chaibasa via Patratu-Pithoria-Kanke-Ranchi-Chakradharpur part of
which, that is, Ranchi Chaibasa is covered under a notified Scheme
dated 1.4.1960, duly in force, under the Act. The Ribar State Road
Transport Corporation, a State Undertaking, filed its objections claim-
ing that no private operator could be permitted to operate the said route
as part of the route being Ranchi-Chaibasa was itself a notified route F
and grant of permits on the route in question would contravene the
notified Scheme. Taking the view that the over-lapping Ranchi-
~ Cbaibasa route was restrictedly notified for direct services only, the
objections raised by the Corporation were rejected and permits for the
route in question granted to respondents 3 and 4. Corporation's appeal
to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and thereafter Writ Perition G
before the Patna High Court being unsuccessful, it has come in appeal
by special leave against the judgment of the High Court dismissirlg the
-'- Writ Petition in limine. Allowing the appeal and quashing all the three
'?'<. orders, this Court.

HELD: In the light of the observations made in Constitution H

667
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] 1 S.C.R.

Bench decision of this Court in Adarsh Travels' case def"ming the wo~
A
'route', the Ranchi-Chaibasa route is identified as the line of travel on
which State Undertaking on nationalisation is allowed to run its vehi-
cles. The bracketed words 'direct service' occuring in serial no. 7 when
contrasted with entries in serial nos. 1 to 6 reveal that the total route of
Ranchi-Chaibasa, without leaving any portion, stood nationalised
B signifying by its name that Ranchi-Chaibasa route is a straight and
direct line of travel which would be traversed by a vehicle by the State ~
Transport Undertaking between two termini rendering all kinds or
services. Any further interpretation would frustrate the object of Chap-
ter IV-A whereunder the scheme is prepared. [672G-673B]

If the interpretation put by the Patna High Court in Marwari
c Motor Service's case to the bracketed words 'direct service' is to be
kept valid, it would frustrate the very purpose of nationalisation, for
any person in that event could operate on a nationalised route by adding ''y--"'-
thereto, or substracting therefrom, some kilometerage and keep one i
terminus as a point of start, or a point of ending, on an on-notified route
D and put forward his ~ to submit himself to the discipline called 'cor-
ridor restictions' which practice has been deprecated by um Court. (673E-F]

Mis Marwari Motor Service v. Chotanagpur Regional Transport
Authority and Others, AIR 1973 Patna (Vol. 60) 273, referred to.

E Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Another v. ~tate of U.P. &Others,
[1985) (Suppl.) 3 SCR 661, followed.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3693
of 1982.
-
F ~rom the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.1982 of the Patna High ~
Court m C.W.J.C. No. 4087of1981. ·
Ranjit Kumar for the Appellant.
Ex-Parti for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
· PUNC.HHI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against
the order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 29-1-1982
passed in Civil Writ Number 4087 of 1981 dismissing the Writ Petition
of the appellant in limine.

H The appellant, Bihar State road Transport Corporation, is a
BIHARSTATETRANSPORTCORP. v. TRANSPORTTRIBUNAL[PUNCHHI,J.]669

~'State Transport Undertaking. Under the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereafter referred to as the 'Act'), the State A
Transport Authority invited applications forthe grant of stage carriage
permits for the route named Bhurkunda-Chaibasa via Patratu-
Pithoria-Kanke-Ranchi-Chakradharpur part of which, that is, Ranchi-
Chaibasa is covered under a notified scheme dated 1-4-1960, duly in
force, under the provisions of the Act. On applications received in B
~ response to the invitiation, the Corporation filed its objections before
the State Transport Authority claiming that no private operator could
be permitted to operate on the said route, as part of it, being Ranchi-
Chaibasa, was by itself a notified route and the grant of permits on the
·. ~· · route in question would contravene a notified scheme. The objection
of the Corporation was'rejected by the State Transport Authority in its
meeting held on 23rd and 24th January, 1979 taking the view that the c
overlapping Ranchi-Chaibasa route was restrictedly notified for direct
-"''-y" services only and as such there could be no legal objection to the grant
i
of permits on the Bhurkunda-Chaibasa route. It accordingly granted
permits to respondents 3 and 4 herein. Appellant's appeal before the
State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bihar was dismissed and the view D
of the State Transport Authority was upheld. The Appellate Tribunal
-
in support of its view placed reliance on a division bench of the Patna
High Court in M/s. Marwari Motor Service v. Chotanagpur Regional
,. >--
_, ,
Transport Authority and Others, AIR 1973 Patna (Vol. 60) 273 in
which such an objection as raised herein was negatived. The appellant's
writ petition against the orders of the State Tra'.nsport Appellat Tri- E
bunal, Bihar was dismissed in limine giving cause to the appellant to
approach this Court for appropriate relief;

The notified scheme dated 1-4-1960, afore-referred to, where-
under the Ranchi-Chaibasa route was declared a nationalised route
was the brain child of the Appellant-Corporation itself. Initially a draft p
scheme was published in the Bihar Gazette on 13-1-1960 under the
provisions of Section 68-C of the Act. Objections were invited to the
proposed scheme and after considering the objections received, the
State Government approved the scheme with some modifications
under section 68-D(2) of the Act. The approved scheme was then
notified under section 68-0(3) of the Act in the Bihar Gazette on April G
1, 1960. The relevant extract of the scheme is reproduced below:

"The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation shall run
and operate stage carriage services relating to routes or
portions thereof specified below to the complete exclusion
of other persons except those who, on the dates, specified H !
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

below, hold permanent permits to run stage carriages in · ~
A those routes and are hereby allowed to operate them until
the dates of expiration of the existing permits:

SI. Nature of Name ofroute Name of Date from which
B No. service service services as
proposed to be ~
plied

1. Stage Ranchi-Muri All 1st April, 1961

c
2.
carriage or portions

Ditto
thereof

Hazaribag
services

Ditto 1st April, 1960
-:::sir

-
Ranchi or "Y
portions thereof

D 3. Ditto Barhi-Bagodar- Ditto Ditto
Dumri-Gobind-
pur or portions
thereof

4. Ditto Giridih-Dumri Ditto Ditto ~-
,,
E or portions.

5. Ditto
thereof

Giridih-Jamua- Ditto 1st April, 1961
...
'-.

Kedarmaor
portions thereof
F ~
6. Ditto Jamua-Chakai Ditto Ditto
or portions
thereof

7. Ditto Ranchi-Chaibasa Ditto 1st April, 1960
G (direct service)
'/·--
It is evident from the Entry in serial no. 7 that the name of the
route is Ranchi-Chaibasa and in this Entry alone that the bracketed
words 'direct service' finds mention whereas in the remaining--serial
H nos. 1 to 6, the main routes or portions thereof are contrastingly
BIHARSTATETRANSPORTCORP. v. TRANSPORTTRIBUNAL(PUNCHHI, J.]671

.._~ mentioned. In Marwari Motor Service's case (supra), the then writ
petitioner stood already given a stage carriage permit for the route A
hazaribag-hazaribag Road and when its renewal was objected to by the
corporation on the ground that it would overlap hazaribag-Bagodar
notified route, the words 'direct service' occuring in the relevant entry
of the notification under the notifed route was required to be inter-
preted. The contention of the said writ petitioner before the High B
~- Court was that though private operators stood ousted on the
/ 'Hazaribag-Bagodar route, it could not be ousted from operating on a
longer or shorter route even though overlapping wholly or partially on
the Hazaribag-Bagodar route. The corporation refuted the argument
. ~ by contending that no private operator could be permitted to operate
- on any portion of the route even if he had tended to operate on a
longer or a shorter route. Confronted with this situatfon, the Patna c
High Court ventured, in the absence of any direct binding judicial
~ · precedent, to solve the question by adopting the interpretation given
· to the bracketed words 'direct service by the Transport Minister of the
Bihar Government to mean the exclusion of private operators for
direct transport services only and not to the exclusion of private D
operators thereon overlapping on longer or shorter routes. Another
factor which appealed to the High Court was that though the scheme
had come into force in 1960 and hazaribag-Bagodar route had been
,.., . I.. . nationalised still the then writ petitioner had thereafter been kept
,. . . . __ granted route permits on the Hazaribag-hazaribag Road route despite
overlapping on the nationalised routes. The High Court in these E
circumstances made the following observations:

- The correct meaning is that private operators who were
operating directly on Hazaribag-Bagodar route were exclu-
ded, private operators having these two termini were not
allowed to operate but private operators having only one F
terminus out of these two termini or passing through this
route having different termini were not excluded .in the
approved scheme".

Relying on the said ratio the Transport Authorities overruled the
objection of the Corporation. G

-·x. We have had the advantage of hearing Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned
counsel for the appeilant only since no one appeared either on behalf of
the State of Bihar nor for the permit holders respondents 3 and 4. The
sole point for consideration is whether the view taken by the Patna
High Court in Marwari Motor Service's case (supra in any more rele- H
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R

A vant iri view of th~ decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in-~~
Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Another v. State of U.P. & Others, .,
[ 1985] (Supp.) 3 SCR 661.

In Adarsh Travels's case (supra), this Court ruled that if the
route has been nationalised under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehi-
B cles Act, a private operator with a permit to ply stage carriage for
another route, 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 passangers on the over-
lapping part of the route, and the question would really get the right
answer on the terms of the scheme rather than on the provisions of the
statute. The word 'route' was introduced to be defiried in section
c 2(28A) of the Act by amendment from March 2, 1970 to mean 'the line
of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a
·-
motor vehicle between one terminus and another'. Spelling out the ~
necessity for its so defining it was recorded: r

D "The introduction of section 2(28A) defining the expres-
sion 'route' appears to have been necessitated to dispel the
confusion consequent upon the seeming acceptance by this
Court in Nilkantha Prasad and Others v. State of Bihar,
[1962] Supp. I SCR 728 of the suggested differences bet-
ween 'route' and 'highway' by the Privy Council in Kelani ~ '-
Valley Motor Transit Co. Ltd. v. Colombo Ratnapura
Omnibus Co. Ltd., [1946] A.C. 338 where it was said, 'A
"highway" is the physical track along which an omnibus
. runs, whilst a "route" appears to their Lordships to be an
abstract conception of line of travel between one terminus
and another, and to be something distinct from the highway
F traversed . . . . . there. may be alternative roads leading
from one terminus to another but that does not make the __,__._
route any highway the same.' The present definition of
route makes it a physical reality instead of an abstract con-
ception and no longer makes it something distinct from the
highway traversed."
G
In the light of the above observations Ranchi-Chaibasa route is
identified as the line of travel on which State Transport Undertaking ':.<'"·""""
on nationalisation is allowed to run its vehicles. The bracketed words
'direct service' occuring in serial no. 7 when contrasted with entries in
serial nos. 1 to 6 reveal that the total route of Ranchi-Chaibasa. without
H leaving any portion, stood nationalised signifying by its name that
BIHARSTATETRANSPORTCORP. v. TRANSPORTTRIBUNAL[PUNCHHI, J.)673

•........._Ranchi-Chaibasa route is a straight and direct line of travel which.
would be traversed by a vehicle by the State Transport Undertaking
A
between two termini rendering all kinds of services. Any further
interpretation would frustrate the object of Chapter IV-A whereunder
the scheme is prepared. It was observed in Adarsh Travel's case (supra)
as follows:
B
"It is well known that under the guise of the so called
'corridor restrictions' permits over longer routes which
cover shorter notified routes or 'overlapping' parts of
notified routes are more often that not misutilised since it is
next to nigh impossible to keep a proper check at every
point of the route. Often times permits for plying stage
carriages from a point a short distance beyond one ter- c
minus to a point at a short distance beyond another
terminus of a notified route have been applied for and
· granted subject to the so called 'corridor restrictions' which
are but mere ruses or traps to obtain permits and to frus-
trate the scheme. If indeed there is any need for protecting D
the travelling public from inconvenience, the State Trans-
port Undertaking and the Government will have to make
sufficient provision in the scheme itself to aviod inconve-
nience being caused to the travelling public."

If the interpretation put by the patna High Court in Marwari E
Motor Service's case (supra) to the bracketed words 'direct service' is

- to be kept valid, it would frustrate the very purpose of nationalisation,
for any person in that event could operate on a nationalised route by
adding thereto, or substracting therefrom, some kilometerage and
keep one tem1inus as a point of start, or a point of ending, on an
un-notified route and put forward his willingness to submit himself to F
.,._"-the discipline called 'corridor restrictions' which practice has been
deprecated by this Court.

For the views afore-expressed, we are of the view that Marwari
Motor Service's case (supra) militates against the principles settled in
Adarsh Travel's case (supra) and thus it should be left to be confined to G
_,. " .. the facts of that case and not any more a binding precedent. Having
~ taken that view, we come to the conclusion that the State Transport
Authority and State Transport Appellate Tribunal were in error in
rejecting the objections of the appellant and High Court too was in
error in dismissing the writ petition in limine. Accordingly, instead of
remanding the matter to the High Court, we allow this appeal and H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991] 1 S.C.R.

A quash the aforesaid three orders but without any order as to costs.- If!!;!!'
Since there was no opposition, we permit respondents 3 and 4 to keep
plying vehicles on their permits, subject of course to their being sub-
sisting and valid till date, uptill 31st March, 1991, and not any further,
to avoid abrupt disruption of transport facilities. We also leave it open
to the State Government to take such steps as are further necessary to
B avoid inconvenience to the travelling public and for that purpose it
may coordinate with the appellant corporation by making suitable~
amendment and provisions in the scheme to further that cause. r -

R.N.J. Appeal allowed.

-