POOLCHAND AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE six petitions arise in similar circumstances & raise common questions and it shall be proper to dispose them of by a common order The questions which are canvassed in these petitions arise out of nationalisation of Ajmer Udaipur, Ajmer Bhilwara, and other connected routes. Mohammed Shafi, petitioner in writ petition No. 1635 of 1975 was an operator of Udaipur Bhilwanra route, while Devilal, petitioner in writ petition No. 1634 of 1975 was an operator of Ajmer Bhilwara route Messrs Mohammed Ishak Mohd. Imail, petitioners in writ petition No. 1632 of 1975 are operators of Bhilwara Neemuch routs and Pokardasa petitioner in writ petition No. 1633 of 1975 is an operator of Ajmer Shergadhvia Nasirabad, Ramsar route, Messrs Phoolchand Ramswaroop is an operator of Bhilwara Banera route. The routes to which the permit's of petitioners Mohammed Shafi and Devilal relate are wholly covered by the nationalisation scheme relating to Ajmer Udaipur and Ajmer Bhilwara and other connected routes (hereinafter called 'the notified routes') while the route of the permit of petitioner Messers Mohmmed Ishak Mohd. Ismail overlaps the notified route from Bhilwara to Chittorgarh and the permit of the said petitioner has been curtailed for operating from Bhilwara to Chittorgarh same would now be valid only from Chittorgarh to Neemuch Similarly the route of the permit of petitioner Pokardas overlaps the notified route from Ajmer to Nasirabad, which portion thereof has been curtailed and the permit of that petitioner would now be valid only from Nashirabad to Shergarh. So far as petitioner Phoolchand Ramswaroop is concerned, his permit overlaps the nationalised route from Bhilwara upto Shahpura Choraha & the same has been curtailed in respect of the aforesaid portion. Thus the permit of the last mentioned petitioner is valid for the portion from Shahpura Choraha to Banera.

(2.) IT may be mentioned here that a scheme for the nationalisation of Ajmer -Udaipur, Ajmer -Bhilwara, Bhilwara -Udaipur and connected routes was proposed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation', on June 1, 1973 and the proposed scheme was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated June 4, 1973 under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), inviting objections in respect thereof. The petitioners and several other person filed their objections which were considered by the Joint Legal Remembrancer No. 2 to the Government of Rajasthan, who also recorded the evidence of parties in respect of such objections. The Joint Legal Remembrancer, by his order dated September 27, 1975, approved the proposed scheme of total exclusion, subject to the modifications mentioned in his order. The final scheme of nationalisation has been published under Section 68 D of the Act in Rajasthan Gazette dated October 9, 1975, and shall hereinafter be referred to as the app -roved Schema.

(3.) THE related argument which has been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners may also be considered here, namely, that the approved scheme does not satisfactorily resolve the question that curtailment of direct practically overlapping services would not be in public interest. The learned Counsel submitted that the considerations in respect of the provisions of Section 68C and Section 47 of the Act ought to be the same and while deciding as to whether the approved schema provides for a well co -ordinated passenger road transport service or not the question of providing directed services between the two permit of and also the question of saving of time by journeys not being broken should have also been taken into consideration. It may be observed in this respect, that curtailment of direct services resulting in transshipment at certain points has not been held to be (sic) to the provisions of a well -co -ordinated passenger road transport service. In CPC Motor Service, Mysore v. : AIR1966SC1661 their Lords lips of the S.C. were pleased to observe that the likelihood of transhipment from State -owned buses to private omnibuses at the border, where the route operated upon by the State transport under, taking and private operators bifurcated, is not destructive of co -ordination, Their Lordships further observed that under Section 68C 'public interest' is the dominant consideration and transhipment by itself would not connote a lack of cc ordination because where the State omnibuses came to halt, the private omnibuses would take the passengers set down. The same view also was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Malik Ram Kalra v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and it was observed: