M.L.JOSHI, J. - (1.) BY these seven writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the validity of the various draft schemes for nationlisation of Motor Transport Service under Section 68C of the Moter Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the M.V Act) has been challenged by the operators of the affected routes on various grounds, I had issued a notice to the respondents to show cause why the petitions be not admitted and in answer to that, Dr. L.M. Singhvi, learned Advocate General, Mr. M D. Purohit, learned Deputy Government Advocate and Mr. R.N. Munshi, appeared for the respondents.
(2.) CIVIL Writ Petition Nos. 881 of 1973 (S. Kripalsingh v. State of Rajasthan) and 1447 of 1973 (Messrs Gram Transport Service v. State of Rajasthan) pertain to the draft scheme relating to Jaipur Pilani route; Civil Writ Petitions Nos 825 of 1973 (Messrs Green Bus Service Private Limited v. State of Rajasthan) and 1448 of 1973 (Rajasthan Transport Corporation v. State of Rajasthan) relate to the proposed scheme under Section 68 -C of the M.V Act with regard to the Udaipur -Ratanpur route. Civil Writ Petition No. 926 of 1973 (Vasudev v. State or Rajasthan) relate to Jaipur Beawar route and Civil Writ Petitions No. 1500 of 1973 (Shankerlal v. State of Raj) and 1501 of 1173 (Rajasthan Motors v. State and Ors.) pertain to the draft scheme in respect to Udaipur Beawar route which according to the petitioner is not a route in existence The draft schemes under Section 68 -C of the M.V. Act were got published by the General Manager Rajasthan State Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation) for nationalising the above mentioned routes. Objections were filed by the existing/affected operators challenging the proposed schemes on various grounds The Deputy Legal Remembrancer to the Government of Rajasthan was appointed to dispose of the objections. During the course of the hearing of the objections, preliminary objections touching the validity of the proposed schemes were raised before the Deputy Legal Remembrancer who rejected the same and set the cases in regard to the above schemes for the evidence of the objectors on merits. Being dissatisfied, cach of the petitioners in the concerned cases has prayed for the quashing of the draft scheme; for a writ of prohibition restraining the Deputy Legal Remembrancer from passing any order under Section 68 -D of the M.V. Act and other consequential reliefs in that behalf.
(3.) AS many common questions for law arise in all the writ petitions, it shall be convenient to dispose of them by a common judgment.;