KAN SINGH, J. - (1.) WE have before us a bunch of 63 writ petitions. The petitioners therein challenge the validity of certain schemes of nationalisation over some routes in Rajasthan and as they raise some common questions of law, they were called on for hearing together and can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) BY a notification published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 29 -11 -72, the Rajasthan State had nationalished 3 routes in the Kota region which were Kota -Jhalawar -Aklera, Kota Chechat and Kota -Ramganjrnandi. In pursuance of the scheme the Rajasthan State Roadways Department started providing transport services over these routes. It may be mentioned that though the routes both the termini of which fell on the nationalised routes were covered by the approved scheme, the other routes which partially overlapped (i e both or ore of the termini of which routes were beyond the nationalised routes and overlapping was on a portion) were left untouched and the operators of those routes continued to provide transport services on their routes including the portions overlapping the nationalised routes. From 1st October, 1964, the Rajasthan State Government constituted the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to aa Corporation, under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Corporation Act'. By identical notifications dated 22 -9 -69 the General Manager of the Corporation published schemes of notionahsati in for the routes that partially overlapped the aforesaid 3 nationalised routes. The operators on these partially overlapping routes then filed objections against the draft schemes and the objections were heard by the Deputy Legal Remembrancer to the Government of Rajasthan who was an officer authorised by the Government to hear objections on its behalf and to approve the schemes with or without modifications, as he thought fit. The Deputy Legal Remembrarcer eventually passed a common order in respect of all the draft schemes and approved 17 schemes which were of total exclusion of all private operators on the routes or portions thereof. The schemes were ordered to come into force on 15 -4 -73 or thereafter. These approved schemes were duly published in the Gazette. In the writ petitions a number of grounds have been taken for assailing the validity of the schemes. A common ground in all the writ petitions is that the schemes were not prepared or caused to be published by the Corporation, but this was done by the General Manager of the Corporation who had no authority to do so. In this connection the vires of Rule 3 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1965, hereinafter to be referred as the ' Rules', is being challenged on the ground that it was repugnant to Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It was further contended that the Corporation had neither formed any opinion for the running of any transport services on the routes covered by the draft schemes, nor had it asked the General Manager to prepare or published the schemes. The vires of Rule 4 were also challenged on the same ground that it has been left to 'he General Manager to furnish the particulars in the scheme. Then one of the writ petitioners Shri Gopal Kishan Menon (Writ Petition No. 449/73) questioned the vslidity of the scheme pertaining to his route on the ground that he was providing transport service on an inter -statal route (Barkhera Machalpur in Madhya Pradesh) and a draft scheme of nationalisation could only be initiated by the Central Government as envisaged by Section 68J of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
(3.) THE writ petitions were contested by the State of Rajasthgn and the Corporation It was denied by them that the schemes were bad on any of the grounds urged by the petitioners. It was submitted that Rule 3 of the Rules was valid and further the Corporation had passed a resolution for nationalisation of these routes and had authorised the General Manager to publish the schemes in the Gazette. In the alternative it was submitted that the Corporation had resolved at a properly convened meeting that the aforesaid partially overlapping routes be nationalised and, therefore, the schemes could be said to have been prepared by the Corporation and the General Manager of the Corporation who was nothing but a limb of the Corporation could properly give effect, to the resolution of the Corporation by filing in the necessary details and publishing the schemes in the Gazette. The various other grounds taken in the writ petitions were also countered.;