DEEP NARAIN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Misc. Judicial Case No. 334 of 1960, the petitioner, namely. M/s. Road Transport Company at Dhanbad, has been carrying on motor transport business by running stage carriage services on Dhanbad-Hazanbagh and Dhanbad-Giridih routes by virtue of permits granted by the Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority. On the 29th January, 1960, the petitioner applied for renewal of permits under Section 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It appears that respondent No. 3, the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, prepared a scheme under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act for notification of certain 'routes, and the scheme was published in the Bihar Gazette dated 13-1-1960. A copy of the draft scheme in Hindi is annexure A to the application, which reads as follows: ..(Verunacular Matter Omitted).. The petitioner and a number of other persons filed objections to the said scheme, and the objections were heard by the Minister of Transport on 16-3-1960. The Minister of Transport rejected the objections and on 1-4-1960, the draft scheme was approved with certain modifications and published in an extra-ordinary issue of the Bihar Gazette. The notification of the State Government dated 1-4-1960, reads as follows:

(2.) Cause has been shown by the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the State Road Transport Corporation and by the Government Pleader on behalf of other respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given.

(3.) Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted in the first place that the approved scheme was bad because of vagueness and uncertainty of the portions of the routes to be taken over. It was contended that the scheme did not specify the portions of the routes which were sought to be taken over and, therefore, it must be held to be void for vagueness and uncertainty, Learned counsel pointed out that the tabular portion of the scheme, item No. 1, column No. 3, reads as "Ranchi-Muri or portions thereof", and item No. 2, column No. 3, reads "Hazaribagh-Ran-chi or portions thereof". There are similar entries under items Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, column No. 8, of the tabular statement. The contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that it is not clear from the approved scheme whether the intention of the State Road Transport Corporation was to take over the entire routes or to take over portions thereof and also which of the portions were intended to be taken over. The argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner is very ingenious, but I do not think there is any substance in the argument. The reason is that the tabular part of the approved scheme must be read in the context of the preamble "of the scheme and also the draft scheme published on 13-1-1960. The preamble of the draft scheme states that