Nationalisation scheme validity under transport law upheld; consequential permit orders and route challenges were held not independently assailable.

Where the State directly runs the transport undertaking, the opinion required to initiate a nationalisation scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is legally attributable to that undertaking, so the scheme is not invalid on the ground that the State Government acted through its officers. A new objection to the authorisation of the officer hearing and approving the scheme under Section 68D cannot ordinarily be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court, especially after the scheme has been published and has become final. Once the scheme is final, curtailment, renewal, cancellation and other permit-related orders are merely consequential and not independently assailable, and challenges to State buses operating on the nationalised route without permits are not maintainable absent an enforceable legal right.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a scheme of nationalisation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was invalid because it was initiated by the State Government in its capacity as the State transport undertaking; (ii) whether the objection that the officer who heard and approved the scheme under Section 68D was not duly authorised could be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court; (iii) whether the curtailment, renewal, cancellation, and related orders passed to give effect to the approved scheme were open to challenge; and (iv) whether the petitioners could challenge the operation of State transport buses on the nationalised route without permits.

Issue (i): whether a scheme of nationalisation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was invalid because it was initiated by the State Government in its capacity as the State transport undertaking.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes between the State transport undertaking and the State Government, but where the undertaking is run directly by the State, the Government necessarily acts through its officers and departments. The opinion required by Section 68C is, in law, the opinion of the State transport undertaking when formed by the State Government acting for that undertaking. The Court treated the initiation of the scheme as valid because the undertaking and the Government were not legally separable in that context.

Conclusion: The challenge to the initiation of the scheme failed.

Issue (ii): whether the objection that the officer who heard and approved the scheme under Section 68D was not duly authorised could be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The pleaded case before the High Court and in the writ petition did not raise this specific challenge. The Court applied the settled rule that a new ground, especially one turning on factual and procedural matters, is not ordinarily permitted to be urged for the first time at the hearing in the Supreme Court absent exceptional circumstances. The scheme had also been duly published and had become final under Section 68D(3).

Conclusion: The challenge was not entertained and could not invalidate the scheme in the present proceedings.

Issue (iii): whether the curtailment, renewal, cancellation, and related orders passed to give effect to the approved scheme were open to challenge.

Analysis: Once the scheme became final, the transport authority had no discretion to act inconsistently with it. Orders under Section 68F merely implement the approved scheme and are consequential in nature. The Court treated such action as flowing mechanically from the scheme and not as an independent adjudicatory determination.

Conclusion: The consequential orders were not open to challenge.

Issue (iv): whether the petitioners could challenge the operation of State transport buses on the nationalised route without permits.

Analysis: After the scheme and cancellation of permits took effect, the petitioners no longer had a subsisting legal right to ply on the route. In the absence of an enforceable personal or fundamental right, they could not maintain the challenge either under Article 226 or Article 32 to the State undertaking's operation of buses on the route.

Conclusion: The challenge to the State undertaking's operation of buses without permits was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The approved nationalisation scheme was upheld, and the petitioners' claims against the consequential transport orders and the operation of the route by the State undertaking were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the State itself runs the transport undertaking, the opinion and action required for scheme initiation under the nationalisation provisions are legally attributable to the State transport undertaking, and once the scheme becomes final, subsequent permit-related orders are merely consequential and not independently assailable.

---