(1.) These are two appeals on certificates granted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The appeals are connected and will be dealt with together. The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act (No. 64 of 1950), came into existence in May 1962 to operate as State Transport Undertaking under S. 68-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, No. 4 of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Corporation passed two resolutions in April and May 1964 by which it decided to take over certain routes under Chap. IV-A of the Act to the to the exclusion of the existing private operators on those routes. Two schemes, namely, Nos. 16 and 22, dated May 11, 1964, were published by the Corporation inviting objections within 30 days. The schemes appeared in the Government Gazette of May 22,1964 and objections thereto were filed by private operators affected thereby within the period prescribed. Thereafter the authority empowered to hear objections under S. 68-D of the Act gave notices fixing a date for hearing. The hearing was to begin on September 4, 1964, but it was postponed a number of times. Finally, arguments were heard on May 20, 1965. The authority passed orders on June 8, 1965 modifying the schemes in certain particulars. On June 11, 1965, the modified schemes were published, but as there were mistake in them, corrected schemes as modified were finally published on June 18, 1965.
(2.) Then followed writ petitions to the High Court in August 1965 by private operators who were dissatisfied with the order of the authority concerned. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions rejecting all the contentions raised by the petitioners before it. Thereafter the High Court gave certificates to appeal to this Court, and that is how the appeals have come before us.
(3.) It is unnecessary to set out all the points raised before the High Court for learned counsel for the appellants have raised only some points before us out of those raised before the High Court. It is enough, therefore, to set out the points that have been raised before us and to indicate the decision of the High Court thereon. The first contention raised before us is that the proposed schemes published on May 22, 1964 were bad inasmuch as they were not in compliance with S. 68-C of the Act and the rules framed thereunder, for they did not give necessary particulars which would enable the appellants to formulate their objections to the proposed schemes in respect of the four-fold purposes mentioned in S. 68-C. The High Court rejected this contention holding that there was sufficient compliance with the provisions contained in S. 68-C and the rules framed thereunder and there was enough material in the proposed schemes to enable the appellants to file objections thereto. The second contention is that the Special Secretary who heard the objections on behalf of the State Government was not validly authorised to do so inasmuch as he had been appointed under the Rules of Business framed under Art. 166 (3) of the Constitution while appointment should have been under S. 68-D (2-a) of the Act, which was inserted therein by the Motor Vehicles (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, No. 2 of 1963. The High Court rejected this contention holding that the provision in Section 68-D (2-a) was supplementary to the power which the State Government had under the Rules of Business and, therefore, it was open to the State Government to act under either of the provisions. The third contention is that the order approving the schemes passed on June 8. 1965 was invalid inasmuch as it did not say that the schemes fulfilled the purposes mentioned in S. 68-C. The High Court rejected this contention also holding that as soon as the authority approved the schemes, it must be held to have impliedly decided that the schemes fulfilled the purposes mentioned in S. 68-C. The last contention is that the hearing given by the authority was not adequate and real and, therefore, the approval given was invalid. The High Court rejected this contention also holding that in the circumstances of the case the hearing given was sufficient for the purpose. In the result the High Court dismissed the writ petitions after rejecting other points which were raised before the High Court but are not raised before us. We shall now proceed to deal with the four contentions raised before us in that order.