SHRINIVASA REDDY AND OTHERS v. THE STATE 0F MYSORE AND OTHERS
Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 130; 1959 INSC 141
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA , SYED JAFFER IMAM, J.L. KAPUR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA
Judgment date:
Case summary
1959 INSC 141. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1959-11-06. SHRINIVASA REDDY AND OTHERS v. THE STATE 0F MYSORE AND OTHERS. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)] The house in Dhanraj Lane was valued in the draft sale deed at Rs. 3,500 and in the sale deed at Rs. 2,ooo: No explanation has been given for this disparity between the prices mentioned in the draft and the Rambilas sale deed and there is substance in the contention s£rongly pressed by counsel for the transferors that the value of Rs. 2,000 for a house with a ground floor and two stories is artificial. The evidence discloses that the house was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 20 and capitalising that rent at 5% on the assumption that by the construction the land was folly developed, the price thereof was more than double the price set out in the deed. It is clear that this house was included in the deed to make up the total value of Rs. 39,500, the amount required by the transferors to tide over their immediate difficulties.
Counsel for the transferees sought to· rely upon the evidence of subsequent conduct of the transferors as indicative of the character of the transaction as a sale, but as already observed, that evidence is inadmissible. In our view, the High Court was right in holding that the real transaction incorporated in Ex. D-1 was a mortgage and not a sale. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. SHRINIV ASA REDDY AND OTHERS v. THE STATE 0]' MYSORE AND OTHERS (B. P. SINHA, c. J. , JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, K. N. WANCHOO and K. C. DAS GUPTA, JJ. ) Motor V ehicles-l>l ationalisation of transport services-Scheme -If must be capable of hfing implemented all at once-Application for permit by State Transport Undertaking-Procedure- Motor Vehicles Act, I939 (4 of r939), as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, r956 (roo of r956), ss. 68C, 68F(z), 57(2). The stage carriage permits of the petitioners, who were also the petitioners in Writ Petition No.
75 of 1959, previously reported, were expiring on 31st March, 1958, and were rene\ved up to March 31, 1959· A fresh scheme of nationalisation having - been approved ahd published under s. 68C of the Motor Vehicles z959 Act, the Regional Transport Authority, in order to avoid inconvenience to the public, granted temporary permits to the Shrinivasa Reddy petitioners till the State Transport Department obtained, their v. permits. The Departme'nt applied for permits under s. 68F(1) of The. State of the Act in accordance with the scheme admittedly less than six Mysore. weeks before the date when they were to take effect, contrary to the provision of s. 57(2) of the Act. The petitioners had also applied for renewal of their permits. The Regional Transport Authority issued permits to the Department and rejected the renewal applications of the petitioners. The petitioners moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing, that order.
The High Court held that the issue of permits to the Department was invalid as the provision of s. 57(2) had not been complied with, and the refusal of renewal of the petitioners' permits was incorrect, but it dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the relief that could be granted to the petitioners could only be short-lived. The petitioners applied for a certificate to enable them to appeal to this Court and while that application lay pending, applied to this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. It was contended on their behalf that before the renewal application could be rejected and permits grantea to the Department under s. 68F(r) of the Act, the Department must apply for permits in respect of all the routes covered by the scheme so that there could be no possibility of any discrimination between an operator and an operator in infringement of Art. 14 of the Constitution as also their rights to carry on their business under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
It was further contended that non-compliance with the provision of s. 57(2) of the Act disentitl-ed the Department to any permits at all. It was contended on behalf of the Department that it was open to it to implement the scheme by stage and it was denied that there could be any discrimination in doing so or that. s. 57(2) applied to an application under s. 68F(1) of the Act. Held (per Sinha, C. J. , Imam, Wanchoo and Das Gupta, JJ. ), that it was clear from the language of s 68F of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939,. that an application by a State Transport Undertaking for a permit thereunder mu'st be made in the manner prescribed by Ch. IV of the Act and, therefore, there could be no doubt that such an application must fall within the purview of s. 57(2) of the Act. Consequently, the orders granting the application for permits made by the State Transport Department in the instant case, admittedly in breach of s. 57(2) of the Act, were on that ground alone liable to be quashed.
Section 68C of the Act contemplates that where there is no intention to operate an entire route but a portion of it, that portion alone should be specified as the route and not the whole of it. or any portion thereof as in the instant case. The scheme, however, clearly intended that alL the routes in their entirety • 132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)) were to be taken over and so the qualifying words were mere surplusage. Per Kapur, J. -On a proper construction of ss. 68C and 68F of the Act, it would not be correct to say that the Legislature intended that the scheme as approved must be implemented all at once or not al all. It would be impractical to suggest that the whole scheme should be implemented in a rigid manner. Some flexibility in implementing it must necessarily be implied for other\vise nationalisation of transport services, the accepted State policy in India, was likely to be indefinitely held up, if not thwarted. The language used by s.
68F lends no support to such a contention nor do the words "in Pursuance of" occurring therein mean that the whole of the scheme has to be put into operation and not a portion of it. Bradford Corporation v. Myers, (1916) l A. C. 242, referred to· If the State cannot take over routes for which application can be immediately made, the taking over must become not only difficult but extremely expensive as other interests may supervene in the meantime. Where, therefore, it intends to run a scheme \vithin a reasonable time, there can be no reason \vhy it should not apply· for different routes \vi thin a reasonable time so long as it acts honestly, fairly and without any oblique motives. Since the State Undertaking in the present case had implemented a part of the scheme and made fresh applications for permits in the manner providec! by s. 57(2) and their relevant provisions of Act, it is not necessary to pass a formal order quashing the permits granted in its favour. J{. N. Guruswamy v.
The State of Mysore, [1955] 1 S C. R. 305 referred to. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 95 of 1959. Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor. General of India and B. R. L. Iyengar, for the petitioners . • H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, R. Gopalakrishnan and T. M. Sen, for respondents Nos. I and 2. 1959. November 6. The Judgment of Sinha, C. J. , Imam, iVanchoo and Das Gupta, JJ. was delivered by Wanchoo, J. Kapur, J. delivered a separate judgment. W ANCHOO J. -This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution is a sequel to Writ Petition No. 75 of 1959, which is also being disposed of. today. It is not necessary therefore to set out the early history leading to • this petition as that has already been given in the z959 judgment in Petition No. 75. Suffice it to say that , . . -R dd . . h h th . . . 5 ,irinivasa e y th e pet1t10ners w o are t e same as e pet1t10ners m v. Petition No.
75 were transport operators in the Anekal lheStateof pocket in the State of Mysore. They held stage carri- Mysore age permits for various routes which were expiring on March 31, 1958. They were granted renewal of these Wanchoo f. permits up to March 31, 1959. . In the meantime, steps were taken to . formulate an approved scheme under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, No. IV of 1939, (hereinafter called the Act). The scheme was . finally approved and published on ·April 23, 1959. In order, however, to avoid inconvenience to the public temporary permits were granted to the petitio! ,lers after March 31, 1959, for a period of four months or up to the time the Mysore Government Road Transport Department (hereinafter called the Department) was granted . permits under s. 68]', whichever was earlier. Sometime before June 23, 1959, the Department applied for permits in accordance with the scheme while the petitioners had a,pplied for renewal of their permits.
The Regional Transport Authority, Bangalor. e (hereinafter calle inivasa and 68F the scheme as approved must be implemented as a whole simultaneously or not at all. The submission of the Department on the other hand is two-fold: (1) that in the very nature of things it must be left open to the Department to implement the scheme in reasonably convenient stages and (2) if th,e Department has applied for and obtained permits for certain routes in the scheme and has substantially implemented that scheme the implemented portion of the scheme cannot be set aside. The decision of these rival contentions would turn on the interpretation of the various sections in Chapter IV-A. This Chapter contains special provisions relating to State Transport Undertaking and was inserted in the Act bys. 62 of Act 100 of 1956. Section 68A contains definitions, 68B gives overriding effect to this Chapter qua Chapter IV. Section 68C deals with preparation and.
publication of the scheme of road transport services of the State Transport Undertaking. Section 68D provides for objections to be filed against a proposed scheme; 68E to the consequences of cancellation or modification of the scheme. Then comes s. 68F which provides for the issue of permits to State Transport Undertakings. Section 68G provides for the method of determining of compensation in case of State Transport taking over ; 68H for paymen~ of compensation and 68I gives power to make rules. We were informed by Mr. Sanyal that rules have been framed under this section. The relevant portion of s. 68C is as follows :-. " Where any· State transport undertaking is of 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 State transport undertaking 142 SUPREME COUR'r REPORTS [1960. (2)] may prepare a scheme giving particulars of the· nature of the services proposed to be rendered the area or route proposed to be covered ..... " Secti9n 68F(l) provides: "Where, in pursuance of an approved scheme any State transport undertaking applies in the manner specified in Chapter IV for a stage carriage .
permit or a public carrier's permit or a contract carriage in respect of a notified area or notified route, the Regional Transport Authority shall issue such permit to the State Transport undertaking, not-withstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter IV. " It was contended that the State Transport Undertaking (to be termed the Undertaking) can propose a scheme only when the conditions in s. 68C are fulfilled, that is, for the purpose of providing efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport services. The argument is that all these conditions are a sine qua non of the scheme being proposed and if for any reason the Undertaking is unable to put the whole scheme into effect all at once then it should modify the scheme under s. 68E and implement this modified scheme. No doubt the words adequate, economical and co-ordinated are used in the SC'ction but they must be read in the context.
The words of the section require that when the Undertaking is of the opinion that for the objects therein mentioned the services on any route or in any area should be operated by it, it may prepare a scheme. All that the section requires is that the Undertaking must be of that opinion when it prepares the scheme. The scheme has to contain particulars of the services proposed to be rendered, the areas or routes to be covered. It was next submitted that the language of s. 68F further supports the contention that if the approved scheme is to be implemented it must be implemented all at ·once or not at all and emphasis was laid on the words "in pursuance of" and "pcrm:it in respect of a notified area or notified route". These words, in my opinion, do not necessarily lead , • to that conclusion. Before the scheme is proposed r959 the Undertaking. is to be of a certain opinion and Shrinivasa Reddy when it is to be in operation the Undertaking has to v.
proceed in a manner prescribed in the section. The state of But it cannot be said that when the scheme is imple. .. Mysore · mented, the whole thing is to be done in a rigid manner. Some • flexibility and practicability in Kapur l effectuating the scheme must necessarily be implied because of the implications, financial and others of the scheme itself. It may happen that at the time of the implementation it is discovered that the scheme cannot be put into effect all at once, because of a natural calamity or of some unforeseen circumstance beyond the control of the State Transport Undertaking. If the contention of the petitioners is correct then it would mean that the whole scheme must be > scrapped and a new scheme prepared and approved with its consequential delays.
In this manner the policy of nationalisation which is the State policy in India would be indefinitely put off because in the meanwhile all kinds of interests may come into existence and circumstances may supervene which may defay, if not obstruct. , the State in its policy of nationalisation. The use of the words " in pursuance of" in s. 68F only means that applications are made to give effect to the scheme or in execution of the scheme. These words import a notion of obligation and are more restrictive than the phrase "by reason of" which is permissive. Bradford Corporation v. Myers (1) where Lord Buckmaster in construing these words said:- "It is because the act is one which is either an act in the direct execution of a statute, or in the discharge of a public duty, or the exercise of a public authority. " T~erefore, the mere use of the words " in pursuance of" eannot mean that the whole scheme has to be put into operation and not. a portion of it. (1) (1916) I A. C. 242 at p. 247.
The second argument raised in support of the contention that the scheme has to be implemented as a Shrinivasa Reddy whole and all at once is the use of the words "applies in the manner specified in Chapter IV for a stage carriage permit ....... in respect of a notified a,rea or notified route. " Chapter IV deals with the control of transport vehicles. Section 46 deals with applications for such stage carriage permits and requires the following particulars to be set out in the applications: the route or routes or the area or areas for which the application is made, the number of vehicles proposed to operate in relation to each route or area, the minimum and maximum_number of daily services proposed to be provided in relation to each route, the number of vehicles to be kept in reserve, the arrange-ments to be made for housing and repair of vehicles and for the comfort and convenience of passengers and such other matters as may be prescribed.
This section also applies to applications made under 68F. It means therefore that if the area is extensive or the number of routes which a State Undertaking wishes to take over is large a number of applications will have to be made if all these particulars ha;e to be properly given. If the contention of the petitioners is correct then all applications under s. 46 will have to be made at one and the same time and there is no reason to make allowances for mistakes or accidental om1ss10ns. If accidental omissions are to be excused there is no reason to exclude omission due to unforeseen circumstances, e. g. , some vehicle being found unusable, some, repair shops not being completed in time or some natural calamity m'aking it impossible to start operations on a particular route.
If the State cannot take over those routes for which applications can immediately be made then it would mean that taking over would become not only difficult but extremely expensive because, as I have said before, other interests may come in which it may not be possible for the State to take over. Therefore, if the State Undertaking intends to run a scheme within a reasonable time then there is no reason why the State should not apply for different routes within a reasonitble time so long as it acts honestly, fairly and without oblique motives.
The third argument on behalf of the respondents was that if the State Undertaking has implemented the scheme in regard to c~rtain routes and has actually started work on those routes after having obtained permits that portion of the implemented scheme should not be quashed because it would mean that the stage carriages of the State Undertaking will be taken off and somebody else will have to be given the permits at once or the people will have to go without road transport which cannot be the intention of the Act. If the policy of the State is nationalisation then such an order will not only delay but obstruct and thwart that policy. In my opinion therefore it is not the intention of the legislature in ss. 680 and 68]' that the whole scheme must be put into operation all at once or not at all. The question then arises as to what should be the order in the instant case.
The High Court has indicated in its order that the applications made on behalf of the State Undertaking were not in accordance with s. 57 of the Act and the learned Additional Solicitor- General informed us that the State Undertaking had accepted that view of the law and proceeded to make applications in accordance withs. 57 and other relev.. ant provisions of Chapter IV. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, it is not necessary to pass a formal order quashing the permits granted in favour of the State Undertaking. The case is very much like K. N. Guruswamy v. The State of Mysore & Ors. (i). In this view of the matter and in view of the opinion I have given in Petitions Nos. 54, 75 & 76, I am of the view that this petition should be dismissed but the parties should bear their own costs. ORDER OF COURT In accordance with the opinion of the majority, we allow the petition and quash the order issuing permits (1) [1955] l S. C. R. 305.
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)1 to the Department. We order parties to bear their own costs of this petition taking into account that Petition No. 117 of 1959 filed by the petitioners with respect to the validity of the scheme has been withdrawn by them at a late stage and we have directed parties to bear their own costs of that petition also. Y. MAHABOOB SHERIFF AND OTHERS v. MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS (B. P. SINHA, C. J. , JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, K. N. WANCHOO and K. C. DAS GUPTA, JJ. ) Motor vehicles-Stage carriage per1nit-Period of renrwal- Duty of Transport Authority-Motor Vehicles Act, I939 (IV of I939), as amended by Act IOO of I956, s. 58. Suh-section (r)(a) of s. 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, provides,- " A stage carriage permit or a contract carriage permit other than a temporary permit issued under s.
62 shall be effective without rene\\1al for such period not less than three years and not more than five years, as the Regional Transport Authority may specify in the permit. " Sub-section (2) provides,- " A permit may be renewed on an application made and dis· posed of as if it were an application for a permit. " Provided that ......................... " The stage carriage permits of the petitioners were ending on March 31, 1958. and they applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore. for a renewal of them. The Tran,port Department of the Mysore State Government opposed such renewal and applied that fresh permits for the routes in question might be granted to it as the State Government int:ended to nationalise the transport services. The Authority, however, dismissed the applications of both the contending parties, but, on appeal, its orders were set aside and the ma1ter was remanded for a fresh decision. A scheme under s. 68C of Ch.
IVA of the Act was in the meantime published and approved by the State Government, which was later on quashed qy the High Court. at the instance of the petitiJners. The Authority passed orders renewil)g the permits of the petitioners for a period of one year from April I, 1958, to March 31, 1959· Appeals against the said orders having proved abortive the petitioners appiicd to the '
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.