Regional Transport Authority, Jalpaiguri Region vs Jalpaiguri Siliguri Bus Syndicate

Gupta, J.—The second Respondent in this appeal, North Bengal State Transport Corporation, which was established under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, is a State Transport undertaking as defined in Section 68A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 68A is in chap. IV-A of the Act which makes certain special provisions relating to State Transport undertakings and includes Sections 68A to 68J.

Section 68C which provides for preparation and publication of scheme of road transport service of a State Transport undertaking states that the State Transport undertaking may prepare such scheme, if it is of the opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run and operated by the State Transport undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise.

The scheme concerned in the present case covers the entire districts of Cooch Behar and Jalpaiguri and Siliguri Sub-division of the district of Darjeeling and a large number of routes in the area including the Cooch Behar-Falakata-Dalgaon-Goerkata-Dhupguri-Mal-Siliguri-Jalpaiguri route. This scheme as modified by the State Government was duly published and thereupon, in terms of Section 68D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the scheme became the approved scheme and the area and the routes to which it relates became respectively the notified area and the notified routes. This scheme excludes all persons from operating any road transport service in the area and the routes mentioned in the scheme except persons who may have been operating any passenger transport service in the said routes on September 1, 1961. The first Respondent in this appeal had been plying stage carriages along the Jalpaiguri-Siliguri route on the aforesaid date. The Jalpaiguri-Siliguri route is a part of the Cooch Behar-Falakata-Dalgaon-Goerkata-Dhupguri-Mal-Siliguri-Jalpaiguri route referred to above.

At a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Jalpaiguri Region, the Appellant, held on April 8, 1965, it was resolved, inter alia, that

applications be invited from the intending persons for a route permit on Jalpaiguri to Siliguri route upto the border of the district,

and pursuant to this resolution notice was issued calling for applications. On June 21, 1965, the first Respondent made an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of mandamus directing the Appellant before us not to give effect to the said resolution and a writ of certiorari quashing the said resolution. On this writ petition a rule nisi was issued. On February 22, 1966, Banerjee J. made the rule absolute, quashed the said resolution and restrained the present Appellant from giving effect to the said resolution. Banerjee J. held that though the provisions of chap. IV of the Motor Vehicles Act authorised the Regional Transport Authority to invite applications for grant of stage carriage permits, in view of Section 68B which lays down that the provisions of chap. IV-A of the Act and the rules and orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in chap. IV of the Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law, the Regional Transport Authority, Jalpaiguri Region, had acted in excess of the jurisdiction conferred on it by law in passing the impugned resolution. The instant appeal has been preferred by the Regional Transport Authority, Jalpaiguri Region, questioning the propriety of the order of Banerjee J.

The learned Advocate for the Appellant drew our attention to Section 2(28A) of the Motor Vehicles Act which defines ''route'' as "a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another." Referring to this definition he contended that the Jalpaiguri-Siliguri route mentioned in the resolution was not one of the routes specified in the scheme, Section 68B had no application. It was not disputed, however, that the Jalpaiguri-Siliguri route was part of Coach Behar-Falakata-Dalgaon-Goerkata-Dhupgurir-Mal-Siliguri-Jalpaiguri route. It was argued on the basis of this definition that the highway between Jalpaiguri and Siliguri and that between Cooch Behar and Jalpaiguri constituted two different routes. This definition of the term ''route'' was inserted in the parent Act in 1969 long after Banerjee J. had disposed of the writ petition. The learned Advocate for the Appellant submitted relying on a decision of the Privy Council in the case of Kelani Valley Motor Transit Co. Ltd. v. Colombo Ratnapura Omnibus Co. Ltd. (1946) A.C. 338 : AIR 1946 P.C. 137 that the definition only recorded that the term ''route'' had always meant. This may be so, but that does not help the Appellant as the point in dispute in this case appears to be now settled in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Nilkanth Prasad and Others Vs. State of Bihar, . As stated already, the Jalpaiguri-Siliguri route is part of the Cooch Behar-Falakata-Dalgaon-Goerkata-Dhupguri-Mal-Siliguri-Jalpaiguri route. Referring to the distinction between route and highway made by the Privy Council in the case of Kelani Valley Motor Transit Co. Ltd. (1946) A.C. 338 : AIR 1946 P.C. 137 on which reliance was placed on behalf of the Appellant, this is what the Supreme Court observed:

This distinction between ''route'' and ''road'' is relied upon by the Appellants to show that the notified route, which we have called AB, was a different route from the routes for which renewal of permits was demanded, even though route AB might have been a portion of the ''road'' traversed by the omnibuses of the Appellants plying on their ''routes''. The distinction made by the Privy Council is right; but it was made with reference to the words used in the Ordinance there under consideration. The question is whether a similar distinction can be made in the context of the Motor Vehicles Act. Mr. Viswanath Sastri appearing for the Appellants took us through Sections 42 to 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act and drew our attention to those in which the word ''route'' has been used, contra-distinguished from the word ''area'' and contended that everywhere the word ''route'' is used in the sense of a notional line between two termini running a stated course and is used in contra-distinction to what may be conveyed by the word ''area'',... In any event, u/s 68C it is provided that a scheme may notify a route or an area or a portion of a route or a portion of an area and the exclusion of the private operators from the whole route or the whole area or a part of the route or a part of that area, as the case may be.... The distinction between ''route'' as the notional line and ''road'' as the physical track disappears in the working of Chapter IV-A, because you cannot curtail the route without curtailing a portion of the road,...that even if the route was different, the area at least would be the same. The ruling of the Judicial Committee cannot be made applicable to the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Chapter IV-A, where the intention is to exclude private operators completely from running over certain sectors or routes vested in State Transport undertakings. In our opinion, therefore, the Appellants were rightly held to be disentitled to run over those portions of their routes which were notified as part of the scheme. Those portions cannot be said to be different routes, but must be regarded as portions of the routes of the private operators from which the private operators stood excluded....

The position being as explained by the Supreme Court in Nilkanth''s case Supra this appeal cannot succeed. In the circumstances of the case, however, we think that the parties should bear their own costs throughout and the judgment appealed from is modified to this extent only. Subject to this, the appeal is dismissed.

Before we part with the case we would like to refer to an observation of Banerjee J. made towards the end of his judgment. Having quashed the resolution in question his Lordship went on to say--

This is, however, without prejudice to the rights of the Respondent No. 1 to put as many buses as it may like on the route between Jalpaiguri and Haldibari not coinciding with the nationalised route.

These lines should not be construed as if his Lordship directed the Regional Transport Authority, Jalpaiguri Region, to issue as many permits as the private operators seeking to ply stage carriages along Jalpaiguri-Haldibari route might ask for. The said route is not one with which we are concerned in this case. The observation only means that the Regional Transport Authority would be free to grant valid permits in respect of any route not covered by the scheme.

S.K. Datta, J.

I agree.