COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question as to whether the scheme as approved by the Government, a copy is marked as Ext. P. 4 in each of the writ applications, which has been published under S.68D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, should be struck down as there has been no compliance with S.68D(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, arises for consideration in these writ applications. S.68D(2) is in these terms:

(2.) The Chief Minister of the State, who has been empowered to do so heard the objections. The complaint of counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the scheme, as evidenced by Ext. P. 4 in each of these cases, does not disclose that the Chief Minister had heard their objections, and what is more important, that he has not given any reasons for rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners.

(3.) The matter seems to be concluded by the observations of the Supreme Court in a decision reported in H. C. Narayanappa v. State of Mysore ( AIR 1960 SC 1073 ). Mr. Justice Shah said in Para.14 of the judgment: