Hidayatullah, J. - (1.) The appellant who appeals by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated March 30, 1964 is the holder of a contract carriage permit granted to him by the Regional Transport Authority, Agra and valid till February 1, 1955. He owns a single contract carriage and his permit covers the whole of the Agra region which comprises the six districts of Mathura, Agra, Aligarh, Etah, Etawah and Manipuri, No special route or routes are indicated in his permit and the termini of his operation are the frontiers of this region on all sides. In 1955, the Government of Uttar Pradesh purporting to act under Sec. 3 of the U. P. Road Transport Services (Development) Act, 1955, framed a scheme for nationalisation of transport services in Uttar Pradesh. The scheme which was then framed was struck down by an order of the High Court of Allahabad on the petition of some private operators. In 1955, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was amended by the introduction of Chapter IVA dealing with special provisions relating to State Transport Undertakings. This amendment was introduced by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956 with effect from February 16, 1957. After the amending Act the scheme was reconsidered by the State Government and action was taken under Chapter IVA to notify it under Sec. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act. In this scheme 56 routes, which were mentioned by name, were removed from the operation of contract carriage permits issued to private operators in the Agra region and Government announced that "adequate State Road Transport contract carriage would be provided on those routes or portions thereof." The functioning of transport services other than those put by the State Road Transport Services was prohibited on all those routes. The private operators objected again but their objections were overruled and the scheme was published in the Gazette on October 17, 1959. A writ petition (Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 26622 of 1959) was filed by the appellant and others objecting to the scheme on various grounds. This was allowed on February 1, 1962 by Mr. Justice Oak who set aside the scheme and remanded it for reconsideration in the light of his order. The scheme was not struck down in full but only partially in respect of the petitioners in the High Court. It was ordered, however, that the State Government would be at liberty to enforce the scheme in other respects. The main reason for striking down the scheme in respect of those petitioners was that their objections were not considered and they were not given a reasonable opportunity to produce evidence in support of their objections.
(2.) After remand objections were considered and an order was passed by the Legal Remembrancer on October 18, 1963 by which the Scheme was reaffirmed overruling the objections. The only change made was that instead of the provision of "adequate" contract, carriage service by the State Road Transport Contract Carriage Services it was provided that "16 contract carriage services or more or less in accordance with the need from time to time" would be provided on the routes or portion thereof which were notified. The appellant filed a petition in the High Court challenging the scheme. It was heard by Mr. Justice Broome and rejected by him on March 17, 1964. The appellant then filed a special appeal under the Letters Patent against the decision of Mr. Justice Broome. The High Court by the impugned order dismissed it "summarily" though it passed a fairly detailed order. It is against the order that the present appeal has been filed.
(3.) The first contention of Mr. G. S. Pathak is that although the scheme purports to be under Sec. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, the requirements of that section were not borne in mind inasmuch as the scheme framed under Sec. 3 of the U. P. Act was without any change approved and notified after the successive remands by the High Court. It is therefore necessary to see how far the two provisions differ in their requirements. Section 3 of the U. P. Act laid down the power of the State Government to run Road Transport Services as follows:- "3. Power of the State Government to run Road Transport Services- (1) Where the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary in the interests of the general public and for subserving the common good, or for maintaining and developing efficient road transport system so to direct, it may, by notification in the official Gazette declare that the road transport services in general, or any particular class of such services on any route or portion thereof as may be specified, shall be run and operated exclusively by the State Government, or by the State Government in conjunction with railway or be run and operated partly by the State Government and partly by others under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) The notification under sub-section (1) shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein." Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act provided as follows:- "68-C. Preparation and publication of scheme of road transport Service of a State Transport undertaking. Where any State transport undertaking is of opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run and operated by the State transport undertakings whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise, the State transport undertaking may prepare a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and such other particulars reflecting thereto as may be prescribed, and shall cause every such scheme to be published in the Official Gazette and also in such other manner as the State Government may direct." It is contended that the requirements of the former section which were the conditions precedent for action are not the same as the requirements of S. 68-C. It is no doubt true that while S. 68-C makes a mention of an "efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service" "in the public interest", the U. P. Act Act merely mentioned "the interest of the general public" "subserving the common good or for maintaining and developing efficient road transport system." The change of verbiage, however, does not make a change in the requirements. It would be wrong to think that even under the U. P. Act Government would not think of an 'adequate', 'economical' or 'properly co-ordinated' road transport service when it chose to provide road transport services for the common good and for maintaining and developing efficient road transport system. The change in language is no doubt there but the intention underlying the words is the same and even if the exact words of S. 68C might not have been present before the framers of the scheme, it is quite obvious that they took into account those very factors. Indeed, the use of the words "adequate state road transport contract carriage service" in clause (3) of the scheme framed and notified in 1959 reproduces the language of Section 68C and not that of S. 3. This suggests that the requirements of S. 68C were probably borne in mind. Even if they were not and only the requirements of the U. P. Act were borne in mind, we find no difficulty in holding that as the requirements are practically the same, the exercise of power must be referred to S. 68C under which it has validity, and not to S. 3 of the U. P. Act. This ground of objection was rightly overruled by the High Court.;