A SANJEEVI NAIDU Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 51 appellants are private stage carriage operators in the State of Tamil Nadu. They have been operating in various routes in that State. Some of those routes are proposed to be nationalised. A draft scheme of nationalisation has been prepared and published under Section 68 (C) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act IV of 1939) (to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The validity of the draft scheme was challenged by the appellants before the High Court of Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution. Incidentally the validity of some of the provisions of the amending Act XVIII of 1968 (Madras Act) also came to be challenged in those petitions. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Anantanarayanan, C. J. and Natesan, J., have dismissed those petitions. As against the decision of the High Court these appeals have been brought on the strength of the certificates issued by the High Court.

(2.) In these appeals we are primarily concerned with the validity of the draft scheme under challenge. The ground on which it is challenged is that the opinion requisite under Section 68 (C) of the Act was not formed by the State Government but by the Secretary to the government in the Industries. Labour and Housing Department, acting in Pursuance of the powers conferred on him under Rule 23 (A) of the Madras Government Business Rules (to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The contention of the appellants is that the said rule is ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution. There is no dispute that if the rule in question is valid, the challenge directed against the draft scheme must fail. The High Court has opined that that rule is a valid rule. It is the correctness of that conclusion that is primarily in issue in these appeals.

(3.) Section 68 (C) prescribes: