SACHIDANANDA PANICKER Vs. DIRECTOR OF STATE TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions challenge the validity of certain schemes prepared and published under S.68 -C of the Motor Vehicles Act,1939,and approved under S.68 D of that Act.Those Sections read as follows: 68 C "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 services 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 may prepare a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered,the area or route proposed to be covered and such other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed,and shall cause every such scheme to be published in the Official Gazette and also in such other manner as the State Government may direct. "68 D "( 1)Any person affected by the schemes published under S.68C may,within thirty days from the date of the publication of the scheme in the Official Gazette,file objections thereto before the State Government. ( 2)The State Government may,after considering the objections and after giving an opportunity to the objector or his representatives and the representatives of the State Transport undertaking to be heard in the matter,if they so desire,approve or modify the scheme. (3)The scheme as approved or modified under sub -s.( 2)shall then be published in the Official Gazette by the State Government and the same shall thereupon become final and shall be called the approved scheme and the area or route to which it relates shall be called the notified area or notified route:Provided that no such scheme which relates to any inter State route shall be deemed to be an approved scheme unless it has been published in the Official Gazette with the previous approval of the Central Government."

(2.) A common contention raised in all these petitions is that the schemes do not contain "particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered "as required by S.68 C and that they should be struck down on that account.We have come to the conclusion that the contention should prevail.

(3.) ACCORDING to S.68 C,any scheme prepared under that section should contain: (a)particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered; (b)the area or route proposed to be covered;and (c)such other particulars as may be prescribed. The submission on behalf of the petitioners is that though the particulars indicated by(b)and(c)have been given,there has been a total absence of the particulars indicated by(a ).