Case: Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose Transport Co-Opera-Tive Soctet Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Ors

This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 16 September, 1976 of the High Court of Madhyaappellant made an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the High Court and impeached the order dated 21 September 1974 whereby the Government dismissed the appellants objections against Scheme No.relating to Road Transport Nationalisation. The appellant also impeached the Scheme as published in the Gazette on 11 October,High Court held that in view of the fact that Chapterhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is included as Entry 125 in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution the appellant could not challenge the Scheme.

Reasoning:
The High Court erred in holding that it was not open to the appellant to challenge the Scheme. The Attorney General rightly and fairly said that the judgment of the High Court could not be supported on thatHigh Court failed to appreciate that though Chapterof the Act is not open to any constitutional challenge it is open to any aggrieved person to challenge any Scheme on the ground that it is not a valid Scheme as required by the provisions of Chapterhe Act.It has to be remembered that the Scheme in clause (2) as well as in clause (5) mentions the exclusive operation of the Undertaking on these routes in the public interest. A mere allegation that the Scheme does not fulfil the purposes does not amount to any allegation and far less anyis a matter of policy as to what routes should be curtailed for the operation of the Scheme. Courts do not judge such policy decisions. The appellants permits on theroutes expired on 26 and 30 September, 1976. The appellant has been granted fresh temporary permit on the route which is of conjoint operation. This temporary permit was granted to the appellant on 25 September, 1976. The appellant has taken advantage ofScheme recites that the Undertaking formed the opinion that for purposes of providing efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service provided in clause (2) of the Scheme, it is necessary in the public interest that the road transport service in relation to the said routes should be run and operated by the Undertaking in accordance with the Scheme. There is thus intrinsic evidence inherent in the Scheme that the Undertaking formed the opinion for the Scheme. The State Secretary rightly rejected the contention of the appellant which was repeatedhas to be shown that unless the appellant is allowed to operate onroute the Scheme will not be efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated. The appellant did not allege and substantiate the case. This case cannot be entertained also for the reason that it is idle to suggest that the appellant will have not onlyvia Tendukheda Patan route but alsoroute as of right.It is not only competent but also conscionable that a Scheme for nationalisation can be complete or partial. The efficiency as well as adequacy of the Scheme is advanced by such policy decisions of complete or partial nationalization ofsection 68D of the Act the only scope for objection is whether the Scheme is efficient and adequate and not whether exclusion is complete or partial. Objections axe confined only to the four grounds of efficiency, adequacy, economy and proper coordination of road transport service. Exclusion c an be attacked only on these four grounds. There was never any objection to the Scheme on exclusion related to any of these grounds. The State Secretary in his order, on hearing the objections, rightly said that theroute is not to be taken for exclusive operation because there is no mention at all of the route. The Scheme in clause (5) has specifically mentioned which routes are for operation by the State Transport Undertaking in conjunction with others. The exclusion of the appellant from route on which the appellant had earlier operated cannot be said to challenge efficiency, adequacy, economy or proper coordination .