Wanchoo, J. - (1.) This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenges the constitutionality of a scheme finalised under S. 68D (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, No. IV of 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioners are holders of stage-carriage permits on Jodhpur-Bilara and Bilara-Beawar routes. A draft scheme was published under S. 68C of the Act by the Rajasthan Roadways, which is a State Transport Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as the Roadways), on January 26, 1961. It provided for taking over of the Transport service on the Jodhpur-Bilara-Beawar-Ajmer route by the Roadways. Further it provided for taking over three overlapping routes or portions thereof which were entirely on Jodhpur-Bilara-Beawar-Ajmer road, namely, Jodhpur-Bilara, Bilara-Beawar, and Beawar-Ajmer as required by R.3 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the names of the permit-holders on these three overlapping routes with their permits were also specified (or cancellation, and no transport vehicles other than the vehicles of the roadways were to ply on the route to be taken over. The usual time was also given for filing objections to all those whose interests were affected by the draft scheme. The petitioners filed objections under S. 68D of the Act, which were heard by the Legal Remembrancer to the Government of Rajasthan, he being the person appointed to hear and decide the objections. The objectors wanted to lead evidence and did produce some witness but some witnesses to whom summonses were issued did not turn up and the objectors wanted the issue of coercive processes against them. The Legal Remembrancer however refused this on the ground that he had no power to issue coercive process. As the objectors did not produce any further witnesses, the arguments were heard and the Legal Remembrancer gave his decisions on May 31, 1962.
(2.) One of the main points then raised before the Legal Remembrancer was that there were a dozen other overlapping routes which were not touched by the scheme, and therefore the scheme was bad on the ground of discrimination. It may be mentioned that these overlapping routes were not completely overlapping the route to be nationalised though the vehicles plying on those twelve routes had to pass over part of the Jodhpur-Bilara-Beawar-Ajmer road. It was urged on behalf of the Roadways before the Legal Remembrancer that the intention was to render ineffective the permits on these twelve routes also insofar as they overlapped the route to be taken over, though these routes were not mentioned in the draft-scheme like the three routes which were completely covered by the Jodhpur-Bilara-Ajmer route and no notice was apparently given to the seventy-two permit-holders on these twelve partially overlapping routes. The Legal Remembrancer held that even though these routes were not specified in the draft scheme and no notice had been given to the permit-holders thereof, it was open to him to render the permits ineffective with respect to these routes also and proceeded to pass orders accordingly.
(3.) Thereupon five writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Rajasthan by the permit-holders on the three routes which had been notified in the draft scheme as well as by some of the permit-holders of the twelve partially overlapping routes which had not been notified but which had been affected by the order of Legal Remembrancer. Two main point were urged before the High Court in support of the challenge to the validity of the scheme as finally published on June 16, 1962. In the first place, it was urged that the State Government when publishing the scheme as required by S. 68 D(3) of the Act had made certain changes in it beyond the decision of the Legal Remembrancer and therefore the final scheme as published was invalid as it was not open to the State Government to make any changes in the scheme as approved by the Legal Remembrancer. Secondly, it was urged on behalf of the operators on the twelve partially overlapping routes which had not been notified in the draft-scheme that it was not open to the Legal Remembrancer to affect their interests when their routes were not specified in the draft scheme and they had been given no notice thereof. The High Court accepted both these contentions. It was of the opinion that it was not open to the State Government to make any modification in the decision of the Legal Remembrancer and inasmuch as that had been done the final scheme as published was invalid. It also held that as the twelve partially overlapping routes were not notified in the draft-scheme and no notice had been given to the permit-holders thereof, it was not open to the Legal Remembrancer to pass any orders with respect to them. It therefore set aside the scheme as published under S. 68D(3) of the Act. Finally, the High Court observed that as the scheme as published was not the scheme as approved by the Legal Remembrancer and as the decision of the Legal Remembrancer becomes final when it is published, it was open to the Legal Remembrancer to modify his decision, even though he may have signed and pronounced it. The Legal Remembrancer was thus directed to go into the matter again and leave the question of the twelve partially overlapping routes for a subsequent scheme. The final scheme as published under S. 68D (3) of the Act was set aside and the Regional Transport Authority was directed not to implement it until it was regularised in accordance with law.;