D.P. Gupta, J. - (1.) THESE six petitions arise in similar circumstances & raise common questions and it shall be proper to dispose them of by a common order The questions which are canvassed in these petitions arise out of nationalisation of Ajmer Udaipur, Ajmer Bhilwara, and other connected routes. Mohammed Shafi, petitioner in writ petition No. 1635 of 1975 was an operator of Udaipur Bhilwanra route, while Devilal, petitioner in writ petition No. 1634 of 1975 was an operator of Ajmer Bhilwara route Messrs Mohammed Ishak Mohd. Imail, petitioners in writ petition No. 1632 of 1975 are operators of Bhilwara Neemuch routs and Pokardasa petitioner in writ petition No. 1633 of 1975 is an operator of Ajmer Shergadhvia Nasirabad, Ramsar route, Messrs Phoolchand Ramswaroop is an operator of Bhilwara Banera route. The routes to which the permit's of petitioners Mohammed Shafi and Devilal relate are wholly covered by the nationalisation scheme relating to Ajmer Udaipur and Ajmer Bhilwara and other connected routes (hereinafter called 'the notified routes') while the route of the permit of petitioner Messers Mohmmed Ishak Mohd. Ismail overlaps the notified route from Bhilwara to Chittorgarh and the permit of the said petitioner has been curtailed for operating from Bhilwara to Chittorgarh same would now be valid only from Chittorgarh to Neemuch Similarly the route of the permit of petitioner Pokardas overlaps the notified route from Ajmer to Nasirabad, which portion thereof has been curtailed and the permit of that petitioner would now be valid only from Nashirabad to Shergarh. So far as petitioner Phoolchand Ramswaroop is concerned, his permit overlaps the nationalised route from Bhilwara upto Shahpura Choraha & the same has been curtailed in respect of the aforesaid portion. Thus the permit of the last mentioned petitioner is valid for the portion from Shahpura Choraha to Banera.
(2.) IT may be mentioned here that a scheme for the nationalisation of Ajmer -Udaipur, Ajmer -Bhilwara, Bhilwara -Udaipur and connected routes was proposed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation', on June 1, 1973 and the proposed scheme was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated June 4, 1973 under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), inviting objections in respect thereof. The petitioners and several other person filed their objections which were considered by the Joint Legal Remembrancer No. 2 to the Government of Rajasthan, who also recorded the evidence of parties in respect of such objections. The Joint Legal Remembrancer, by his order dated September 27, 1975, approved the proposed scheme of total exclusion, subject to the modifications mentioned in his order. The final scheme of nationalisation has been published under Section 68 D of the Act in Rajasthan Gazette dated October 9, 1975, and shall hereinafter be referred to as the app -roved Schema. I shall first deal with the general contentions which have been argued by Mr. R.R. Vyas, appearing on behalf of all the petitioners. The first ground raised by Mr. Vyas is that neither the Corporation nor the State Government applied its mind objectively in making the proposal and in finalising the nationalisation scheme in as much as the fact of each and every overlapping route was not considered by them. This objection of the learned Counsel for the petitioners does not appear to be well founded, in as much as the petitioners themselves have produced copies from the records of the Corporation of noting of the officials of the Corporation which go to show that the proposal for natinalisition of the notified routes was considered by the Corporation at various levels and it was only when the Administrator of the Corporation came to the conclusion that the proposed nationalisation scheme shall provide an efficient, adequate, economic cal and properly co -ordinated passenger road transport service on the routes in question and he was of the opinion that it would be in public interest that the bus services on the notified route be run and operated by the Corporation alone to the complete exclusion of all other persons that the proposed nationalisation scheme was published under Section 68C of the Act. Similarly the matter also appeals to have been considered at great length by the Joint Legal Remembrancer, who was duly authorised to consider and approve the scheme for and on behalf of the State Government, The question of curtailment of existing Partially overlapping services was also fully considered by him in the light of the objections that the proposed scheme did not provide a properly co ordinate service It may also be pointed out in this connection that the Joint Legal Remembrancer has modified the proposed scheme and has himself allowed exemption in respect of the areas within the municipal limits for the routes coming from outside the municipal limits, treating the area within municipal limits as one unit. This contention of the learned Counsel, therefore, fails.
(3.) THE related argument which has been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners may also be considered here, namely, that the approved scheme does not satisfactorily resolve the question that curtailment of direct practically overlapping services would not be in public interest. The learned Counsel submitted that the considerations in respect of the provisions of Section 68C and Section 47 of the Act ought to be the same and while deciding as to whether the approved schema provides for a well co -ordinated passenger road transport service or not the question of providing directed services between the two permit of and also the question of saving of time by journeys not being broken should have also been taken into consideration. It may be observed in this respect, that curtailment of direct services resulting in transshipment at certain points has not been held to be (sic) to the provisions of a well -co -ordinated passenger road transport service. In CPC Motor Service, Mysore v. : AIR1966SC1661 their Lords lips of the S.C. were pleased to observe that the likelihood of transhipment from State -owned buses to private omnibuses at the border, where the route operated upon by the State transport under, taking and private operators bifurcated, is not destructive of co -ordination, Their Lordships further observed that under Section 68C 'public interest' is the dominant consideration and transhipment by itself would not connote a lack of cc ordination because where the State omnibuses came to halt, the private omnibuses would take the passengers set down. The same view also was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Malik Ram Kalra v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and it was observed: ...All that he could argued was that as some of the existing overlapping services would be discontinued, that was likely to cause inconvenience to the travelling public. We are usable to think, however, that if a scheme provides for complete exclusion of other road transport Services, it should be presumed that it would, as a matter of course, suffer from lack of co -ordination within the meaning of Section 68C of the Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that about 300 services on 58 routes shall be curtailed as a result of the coming into effect of the approved scheme and as such the same should not be considered to be in public interest. The question with which I am concerned is not that of benefit to certain private operators but the matter has to be viewed in the perspective of the larger public interest and mere curtailment of existing routes, which may necessitate transhipment from the vehicles of the Corporation to the vehicles of the private operators at the points of bifurcation & vice versa cannot be held to be the basis for rejecting the approved Scheme as not being in public interest. The plying of the vehicles of the Corporation to the complete exclusion of of private owned public service vehicles may cause some inconvenience at certain points of bifurcation, yet it must be held that the same is for the common good and in the interest of public in general.;