Case: Sarjoo Prasad Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar &amp; Ors

This appeal by special leave is from the judgment dated 15 February 1974 of the Patna High Court. The High Court dismissed in limine the application of the appellant under Article 226 of theappellant challenged the scheme flamed under section 68C ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 published in the Bihar Gazette On 13 September 1972. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation published a scheme for nationalisation of fifteen routes including the route Ranchi-Daltonganj via Kuru. The scheme concerned inter alia the area and the route between Ranchi and Daltonganj. The area included Ranchi, Kuru, Chandwa Daltonganj. This is a rural service. The scheme stated that private operators would be able to run their buses till the expiry of their current permits and no private bus would be operated by the private operators after the expiry of their permits. The scheme further provided that the Government bus operators would operate in the area as shown in the Schedule.

Reasoning:
In the scheme the existence of private operators is specifically mentioned and-it is further mentioned that they would continue to ply till the expiry of their current permits. We are unable to hold that even though the route is nationalised there must be private operators. The private operators under the scheme in the present case were allowed to continue during the currency of their permits. Whether they will be allowed to operate after the expiry of their permits, will depend upon the policy of the Government. After the expiry of the current permits if the policy will allow for renewal o f permits of the private operators, such renewal will have to be in accordance with law.Thecontention is wrong. No monopoly is conferred on the private operators who were allowed to continue to operate. It means they were allowed to continue to operate in accordance with the permits. Operation, after the expiry of current permits, would depend on the policy of the Government whether there would be any renewal and if there would be any renewal, that should be in accordance withfourth contention was that the hearing concluded on 18 August, 1973 but the Government took into consideration letter dated 23 August 1973 written by the State Transport Corporation. This allegation was mentioned in the affidavit-rejoinder. The State had no opportunity to deal with the allegation. This allegation is not made in the writ petition. The appellant, therefore, cannot be allowed to agitate on that ground.