(1.) This appeal by special leave is from the judgment dated 15 February 1974 of the Patna High Court. The High Court dismissed in limine the application of the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The appellant challenged the scheme framed under section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 published in the Bihar Gazette on 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 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.
(3.) Counsel for the appellant contends first that the number of buses operated by private operators on part of the route were to be maintained in spite 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 stage carriages scheduled to operate in each route (a) by private operators and (b) by State Transport Undertaking; the number of daily trips scheduled in each route (a) by private operators and (b) by State Transport Undertaking; and the maximum 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 appellant was that serial Nos. 4, 5 and 6 indicated that in spite of nationalisation of route, private operators would be allowed to operate on part of the 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 Corporation were wrongly given. It was said that 21 service were shown as run 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.