Bachawat, J. - (1.) The appellant challenges the scheme of nationalisation of road transport services in respect of 9 routes in the districts of Ernakulam and Kottayam. Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 deals with nationalisation of road transport services. S. 68-C provides for the preparation and publication of a draft scheme of nationalization of road transport services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise. Section 68-D provides for the filing of objections of persons affected by the scheme, for the consideration of the objections by the Government, for modification or approval of the scheme by the Government and for publication of the approved or modified scheme. Section 68-E provides that a scheme finally settled under S. 68D may at any time be cancelled or modified by the State transport undertaking. The procedure laid down in Sections 68-C and 68-D shall, so far as it can be made applicable, be followed in every case where the scheme is proposed to be modified as if the modification proposed were a separate scheme. For the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified area or a notified route Section 68-F (2) (iii) authorises the Regional Transport Authority to modify the terms of an existing permit so as to curtail the area or route covered by the permit in so far as such permit relates to the notified area or notified route. Section 68-I authorises the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter IVA and in particular to provide the form in which any scheme or approved scheme may be published under Sections 68-C and 68-D. In exercise of its powers under Section 68-I the State Government framed the Kerala Motor Vehicles (State Transport Undertaking) Rules, 1960. Rule 3 provides that every proposed scheme shall be in form I when it is in complete exclusion of existing road transport service, in form II when the scheme is in partial exclusion of existing road transport service, in form III when the scheme is in supplementation of existing road transport service and in form IV when the scheme is to modify an existing scheme.
(2.) On December 15, 1965 the Kerala State Transport Corporation published a draft scheme in form II for nationalization of 9 specified routes in the districts of Ernakulam and Kottayam in partial exclusion of the existing passenger transport services concerned, giving the particulars of the stage carriage permits to be excluded. On October 17,1966 after hearing the objections the State Government approved the scheme. On October 24 1966 the Government published the approved scheme. On December 7, 1966 the appellant filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court to quash the scheme, V. P. Gopalan Nambiyar J. dismissed the petition. A Divisional Bench of the High Court affirmed his order. The present appeal has been filed after obtaining special leave.
(3.) The appellants contention is that the impugned scheme is a complete exclusion scheme and should have been in form I and as it is in form II it is in contravention of Rule 3 read with Section 68-C and is therefore invalid. Let us examine this contention. The scheme is in respect of 9 specified routes. The scheme excludes all private operators holding stage carriage permits for those routes. Take the route Kottayam-Emakulam. All the private operators holding stage carriage permits for that route are excluded. It is therefore argued that the scheme is one of complete exclusion. But it appears that there are 33 existing routes partially overlapping the notified routes. The 33 existing routes and the notified routes have many common road sectors. The scheme does not interfere with the services on the 33 routes. In spite of the scheme the public can get services on the common road sectors from the operators running on the 33 routes. Take the notified Kottayam-Ernakulam route. There is an existing Kottayam- Muttupetty route. A portion of the Kottayam-Mutttupetty route overlaps the Kottayam-Ernakulam route. The impugned scheme does not exclude the services of the operators of the Kottayam-Muttupetty route on the road sector common to the Kottayam-Ernakulam and Kottayam-Muttupetty routes. On these facts, it is impossible to say that the impugned scheme is one of complete exclusion.;