BHARATPUR MOTOR WORKERS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED BHARAT BUS SERVICE ALWAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals stem out of a litigation which germinated from a certain nationalisation scheme contemplated in Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939) (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) More than a decade ago, the State Transport Undertaking of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the Undertaking, for short) took steps for framing four schemes for four routes and proceeded to publish the necessary, notification in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette, copies whereof were sent to Rajasthan for being pasted on the notice-boards of the Transport Authorities in that State. A statutory enquiry, envisaged in Chapter IV-A, followed. Some operators - not the appellants - raised objections and, eventually, the schemes were approved. Of course these schemes related to inter-State routes and had received the concurrence of the State of Rajasthan. Although the Act contemplates the framing of schemes for nationalisation for the obvious benefit of the travelling public by provision of an efficient, adequate economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service and affords statutory opportunity for raising objections and making representations, not merely to the affected operators but also to other entities like associations representing persons interested in the provision of road transport facilities, local authorities police authorities etc., in the present case only private operators have raised their voice against the proposed schemes. While it may look a little odd for such operators to plead in Court that public bodies and passengers' associations in Rajasthan have been denied opportunities of making effective representation, that does not detract from the obligation of this Court to consider whether obligatory procedural requisites prescribed by the statute have been adhered to in the process of nationalising the inter-State route concerned.

(3.) As already indicated, these appeals relate to the validity of a scheme of nationalization of an inter-State route stretching across Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. The identical scheme was challenged, without success, on certain constitutional grounds by a number of operators and this Court negatived those contentions in its decision reported as Khazan Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1974 SC 669. A few grounds, not urged before this Court in the earlier round, however, survive for our consideration. As was rightly pointed out by Mr. Phadke, learned counsel for some of the appellants and also by Mr. B. Sen, appearing for the others, the earlier decision was rendered in appeals pursuant to certificates granted under Article 132 (1) of the Constitution. Necessarily they were confine to constitutional issues. The present points do not favour of constitutional invalidity, but of illegality for non-conformity with statutory mandates. Although the grounds raised in the memoranda of appeals, supplemented by additional grounds are quite populous counsel for the appellants have planned down their propositions to but two or three and we propose to deal with them only. Other contentions faintly referred to in the course of arguments do not appeal to us and merit no mention.