Transport scheme approval upheld where partial overlap distinction, rehearing on existing evidence, and no discriminatory treatment were shown.

A draft transport scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act must be considered as a whole, but approval is not invalid where routes were never included in the draft and the final decision concerns the scheme as framed. After a judicial setting-aside of the published scheme, the authority may reappraise the matter independently on the existing record without treating it as a review of a subsisting order. A further hearing is sufficient where no fresh evidentiary issue arises, and the absence of coercive process for witnesses does not by itself vitiate quasi-judicial proceedings. Distinguishing between wholly overlapping and partially overlapping routes was held not discriminatory.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the approval of the transport scheme was invalid because the scheme was dealt with in parts rather than as a whole and because the officer reconsidered his earlier order after the High Court's decision; (ii) whether the objectors were denied a proper hearing because fresh evidence was not taken and coercive process was unavailable to secure witnesses; and (iii) whether the scheme was discriminatory because it excluded only the routes completely overlapping the notified route and not the partially overlapping routes.

Issue (i): whether the approval of the transport scheme was invalid because the scheme was dealt with in parts rather than as a whole and because the officer reconsidered his earlier order after the High Court's decision.

Analysis: A draft scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act has to be considered as a whole, and the statutory process does not contemplate piecemeal approval of one part while leaving another part for later enforcement. On the facts, however, the partially overlapping routes were never included in the draft scheme at all, and the final approval related only to the scheme as framed. The earlier order had been set aside by the High Court's decision, so the subsequent consideration was not a review of a subsisting order. The officer reappraised the matter in the light of the legal position indicated by the High Court and exercised independent judgment.

Conclusion: The approval was not invalid on either ground.

Issue (ii): whether the objectors were denied a proper hearing because fresh evidence was not taken and coercive process was unavailable to secure witnesses.

Analysis: The earlier evidence remained available after the High Court set aside the published scheme, and there was no requirement that the entire evidentiary process be repeated when no fresh issues had arisen. A sufficient hearing was afforded by allowing further arguments after the remand-type order. The absence of coercive process for witnesses did not vitiate the hearing, because the proceedings were quasi-judicial and the rules only contemplated summoning witnesses and taking the evidence that objectors produced.

Conclusion: The hearing was proper and sufficient.

Issue (iii): whether the scheme was discriminatory because it excluded only the routes completely overlapping the notified route and not the partially overlapping routes.

Analysis: Routes completely covered by the nationalised route were not similarly situated to routes only partially covered. The statute permitted taking over a route with complete or partial exclusion of others, and the scheme could validly draw a distinction between wholly overlapping routes and merely partially overlapping routes. No discriminatory treatment was shown on these facts.

Conclusion: The scheme was not discriminatory.

Final Conclusion: The scheme was upheld in law and the challenge to its validity failed, leaving the petition without merit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a draft transport scheme never included certain routes, the authority does not invalidate the scheme by leaving those routes untouched; a rehearing after a judicial setting-aside of the published scheme may proceed on the existing evidence with fresh arguments if the earlier adjudication has been nullified; and a statutory scheme does not offend equality merely because it distinguishes between wholly overlapping and partially overlapping routes.

---