State transport monopoly on notified routes upheld where discrimination, bias, and inadequate consideration of objections were not proved.

A scheme under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 creating exclusive or partial operation on notified routes for a State transport undertaking was treated as valid legislative action within the concurrent field relating to monopolies and State business. The discrimination challenge failed because overlapping routes alone did not show that the affected operators were similarly situated or legally entitled to ply on the notified routes. Allegations of bias against the approving authority also failed in the absence of reliable proof of personal bias. The objections were found to have been heard and considered in the manner required by law, so the approval of the scheme was upheld and the petition dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the approved scheme was invalid for discrimination or unequal treatment under the equality guarantee; (ii) whether Parliament was competent to enact Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, enabling State transport undertakings to exclude private operators and operate on notified routes; (iii) whether the approval of the scheme was vitiated by bias on the part of the Chief Minister; and (iv) whether the objections to the scheme were not genuinely considered in the manner required by law.

Issue (i): Whether the approved scheme was invalid for discrimination or unequal treatment under the equality guarantee.

Analysis: The scheme was construed as one relating to fourteen notified routes and not to the entire area. The challenge based on discrimination failed because the record did not establish that the alleged omitted operators were similarly situated in law or fact, or that they had the right to pick up passengers along the notified routes. Mere overlap of routes, without proof of an equivalent legal entitlement and comparable treatment, was insufficient to establish hostile discrimination.

Conclusion: The challenge based on discrimination failed and the scheme was not shown to violate equality principles.

Issue (ii): Whether Parliament was competent to enact Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, enabling State transport undertakings to exclude private operators and operate on notified routes.

Analysis: The legislative scheme was held to be more than a mere regulation of procedure; it authorised the State transport undertaking, upon approval of a scheme, to obtain an exclusive or partial monopoly on notified routes and to displace private operators. Such power was held to fall within the concurrent field relating to commercial and industrial monopolies. Article 298 recognised the State's power to carry on trade or business, Article 19(6) saved laws relating to State-operated business, and the scheme was treated as law for the purpose of that protection. Entry 21 of List III was held wide enough to include creation of monopolies, and Entry 26 of List II did not exclude that concurrent power.

Conclusion: Parliament was competent to enact Chapter IVA and the challenge to legislative competence failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the approval of the scheme was vitiated by bias on the part of the Chief Minister.

Analysis: The statutory duty under Section 68D required a judicially informed consideration of objections. However, bias could not be presumed merely because the approving authority formed part of the Government that sponsored the scheme. In the absence of reliable evidence showing personal bias, and in view of the affidavit and reasons recorded showing hearing and consideration of objections, the allegation of bias was not made out.

Conclusion: The plea of bias failed.

Issue (iv): Whether the objections to the scheme were not genuinely considered in the manner required by law.

Analysis: The statutory requirement was an opportunity to object and a judicial approach to those objections. The record showed that the objections were heard and considered, and the mere absence of a reference to every contention did not prove non-consideration. The law did not require appellate reappraisal by the Court, and the approving authority's order was not invalid simply because a different view might also have been possible or because the reasons were not exhaustive.

Conclusion: The objections were sufficiently and genuinely considered and the approval was not vitiated on that ground.

Final Conclusion: All challenges to the approved scheme failed, and the writ petition was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A scheme under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, that creates an exclusive or partial monopoly for a State transport undertaking on notified routes is within legislative competence, and approval of such a scheme is valid if objections are heard and considered judicially, without proof of actual bias or legally cognisable discrimination.

---