Dismissed¶52

Sarjoo Prasad Singh v. the State of Bihar & Ors.

Supreme Court22 Sept 19761976 INSC 228 · [1977] 1 S.C.R. 6611976 INSC 228

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: nationalisation scheme of bus routes; s.68C and s.68-D Motor Vehicles Act 1939; Rule 94A Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules; Form A Schedule II serial Nos. 4, 5, 6; State Transport Undertaking versus private operators; expiry of current permits; renewal of permits; monopoly of route; Article 226 writ dismissed in limine; Patna High Court C.W.J.C. No. 215/74; affidavit-rejoinder fresh plea; Capital Multi Purpose Co-operative Society Bhopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1967] 3 SCR 329; Ranchi-Daltonganj via Kuru; Ranchi-Bero Gumla; Civil Appeal No. 742 of 1974; decision dated September 22, 1976; Ray C.J.

What did the court decide?

No relief to appellant; appeal dismissed with parties directed to pay and bear their own costs. ¶52

Sarjoo Prasad Singh versus the State of Bihar & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Supreme Court (1977)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to appellant; appeal dismissed with parties directed to pay and bear their own costs.

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether Form A under Rule 94A of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules read with Schedule II serial Nos. 4, 5 and 6 envisages compulsory existence of private operators side by side with the State operation on a nationalised route. +3 more

¶9

Court's answer

It is wrong to read serial Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in Schedule II of Form A under Rule 94A to suggest that even though the route is nationalised there must be private operators; the Form is general - on the same route there may be both private operators and State Transport, or only private operators, or only State Transport.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Under Section 68-D the State Government, after considering the objections and giving the objector and the State Transport Undertaking an opportunity to be heard if they so desire, need only approve or modify the scheme; approval or modification indicates the scheme is efficient and adequate, and no finding of fact is necessary on each and every separate objection, following Capital Multi Purpose Co-operative Society Bhopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

¶42

Key takeaways

No monopoly is conferred on the private operators who were allowed to continue to operate; they were allowed to continue only in accordance with their permits, and operation after the expiry of the current permits would depend on the policy of the Government, and any renewal would have to be in accordance with law.ratio¶51
A fresh plea taken by way of allegation only in the affidavit-rejoinder to the writ petition, on which the State had no opportunity to deal with it, cannot be allowed to be agitated.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by special leave against the Patna High Court's order dated 15.2.1974 in C.W.J.C. No. 215/74 rejecting in limine, under Article 226, a challenge to a scheme under s.68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (published in the Bihar Gazette on 13 September 1972) nationalising fifteen routes including Ranchi-Daltonganj via Kuru, whereby existing private operators could ply only till expiry of their current permits; the Minister's order dated 24 September 1973 approved/modified the scheme, republished on 14 January 1974. Held (Ray C.J.): (i) serial Nos. 4-6 of Schedule II in Form A under Rule 94A of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules are general and do not require private operators to exist on a nationalised route; (ii) under s.68-D, once objections are considered and a hearing given, approval or modification of the scheme suffices and no finding of fact on each and every separate objection is necessary, following Capital Multi Purpose Co-operative Society Bhopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1967] 3 SCR 329; (iii) allowing existing private operators to run till permit expiry confers no monopoly, further operation depending on government policy and any renewal being in accordance with law; (iv) a plea raised for the first time in affidavit-rejoinder, without opportunity to the State to answer, cannot be agitated. Appeal dismissed; parties to pay and bear their own costs.

661

SARJOO PRASAD SINGH

THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

¶6

September 22, 1976

¶7

¶8

[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.]

¶9

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.

B .

D•

Dismissing the appeal by special leave the Court,

¶14

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 ABJ (2) Section 681) of the Motor Vehicles Act stats .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]

¶15

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]

662

SUP.REME COURT REPORTS

¶21

[1977] 1 S.C.R.

¶22

•

¶23

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.

¶24

A. B. N. Sinha, K. K. Sinha, K. N. Deshav, S. K. Sinha and Ugra Sankar Prasad for the appellant.

¶25

¶26

Pramod Swarup, for respondent No. 1

¶27

L. N. Sinhg, Sol. Genl., B. P. Singh and A. K. Srivastava, for D. Goburdhan, for respondent N_o. 2.

¶28

The Judgment of the Court was delivered l;>y .

¶29

¶30

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.

¶31

The appellant challenged the scheme framed under section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 published in the Bihar Gazette on D 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 E 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.

¶32

Counsel for the appellant contends first that the number of buses operated by private operators on part of the route were to be mainF tained 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 G 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 H 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

¶33

SARJOO PD. SINGH v. STATE Q.F BIHAR (Ray, C.J.) 663

¶34

by the Corporation and that the Corporation was providing 42 trips. The appellant contended that private operators ran 41 buses and the route needed more buses aggregating 51. .

¶35

¶36

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 operators or there may be only State Transport.

¶37

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 allowed 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 Jannary 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 :

¶42

"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.

(1977] 1 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶49

664

¶50

•

¶51

.A 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

¶52

.B 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

¶53

pay and bear their own costs. s. R. Appeal dismissed.

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether Form A under Rule 94A of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules read with Schedule II serial Nos. 4, 5 and 6 envisages compulsory existence of private operators side by side with the State operation on a nationalised route.¶9
The court held
It is wrong to read serial Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in Schedule II of Form A under Rule 94A to suggest that even though the route is nationalised there must be private operators; the Form is general - on the same route there may be both private operators and State Transport, or only private operators, or only State Transport.ratio¶37
2.
Whether Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act requires a finding on each and every separate objection raised while approving or modifying the scheme.¶9
The court held
Under Section 68-D the State Government, after considering the objections and giving the objector and the State Transport Undertaking an opportunity to be heard if they so desire, need only approve or modify the scheme; approval or modification indicates the scheme is efficient and adequate, and no finding of fact is necessary on each and every separate objection, following Capital Multi Purpose Co-operative Society Bhopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh.ratio¶42
3.
Whether permitting existing private operators to operate till the date of expiry of their permits creates a monopoly of the bus route.¶9
The court held
No monopoly is conferred on the private operators who were allowed to continue to operate; they were allowed to continue only in accordance with their permits, and operation after the expiry of the current permits would depend on the policy of the Government, and any renewal would have to be in accordance with law.ratio¶51
4.
Whether a further plea taken for the first time in the affidavit-rejoinder to the writ petition (that the Government considered a post-hearing letter of 23 August 1973) can be allowed to be agitated.¶9
The court held
A fresh plea taken by way of allegation only in the affidavit-rejoinder to the writ petition, on which the State had no opportunity to deal with it, cannot be allowed to be agitated.ratio¶52

Sarjoo Prasad Singh v. the State of Bihar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarjoo Prasad Singh v. the State of Bihar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

English Electric Company of India Ltd. versus the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer & Ors.

Special Land Acquisition Officer City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore versus P. Govindan

Dalmia Cement Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

P. C. Patel and Ors. versus Smt. T. H. Pathak and Ors.

Sree Gajanana Motor Transport Co. Ltd. versus the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr. versus Ladha Ram & Co.