K ANANTHARAJU Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent, the writ petition itself is taken up today. The writ petition is for declaring the draft scheme published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dt. 22-3-1983, in respect of the route Krishagiri to Kolar Gold fields via Kundarapallie Veppanampalli, Kothakrishnapally, Kanamanabally, Beemanganapally, Kamasandha and Kalari cannot have an extra-territorial authorisation of validity. In support of the submission, reliance is placed on an unreported ruling of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in D.P. Sharma v. The Karnataka State Transport Authority, W.Ps. 3496 to 3498 of 1982, dated 16th April, 1984 : (reported in (1985) 2 Kant LT 16). The only point urged before me is that the draft scheme does not have extra-territorial authorisation. In opposing this, the learned Advocate General relies on Premchand v. State of M.P., AIR 1965 Madh Pra 196 wherein at page 201, in Para 9 this very point was answered in the negative.

(2.) ON a careful consideration of the above, I am of the view that to say that a draft scheme will not have extra-territorial operation itself is to plead for an anomaly. With great respect, I am unable to share the view of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. There is absolutely nothing to suggest under S.68-C, occurring in Chap. IV-A, which has been held to be a Code with regard to nationalisation and that a draft scheme could not have extra-territorial operation. It is well settled that a draft scheme merely is evidence of the intention proposing to nationalise a particular route or an area. Thereafter, there is objection under S.68-D. Those objections when raised, the S.T.U. or the authority concerned will have to follow a judicial procedure of hearing those objections and pass orders and that function has been held to be judicial. It is only after this, the draft scheme, as proposed, is approved or modified depending upon the position, as on date, whether nationalisation would provide an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service. It is at this stage, S.68-D(3) proviso which comes into play. The said proviso runs as follows -