Nationalisation scheme limits private bus operations on overlapping routes; hearing authority cannot approve modification beyond delegated power.

Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 permits modification of an approved scheme only by the State Government after publication and hearing of affected persons. A hearing authority authorised merely to receive objections cannot approve or modify the scheme, so a purported approval beyond that mandate has no legal effect. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 therefore allows rescission of the earlier notification where no valid approval had been made. The document also reiterates that once a route is covered by a valid nationalisation scheme, private operators have no enforceable right to ply on overlapping portions unless the scheme itself permits such operation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rescission of the notification proposing modification of the approved scheme was invalid because the hearing authority's order amounted to a final approval of the State Government under Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (ii) Whether the appellants could claim any subsisting right to operate on routes overlapping the notified Saharanpur-Delhi route in view of the earlier nationalisation schemes and prior decisions.

Issue (i): Whether the rescission of the notification proposing modification of the approved scheme was invalid because the hearing authority's order amounted to a final approval of the State Government under Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Analysis: Section 102 empowers the State Government to modify an approved scheme in the public interest after publishing the proposed modification and hearing the affected persons. The notification of 16 April 1999 authorised the named officer only to hear objections and representations. It did not empower him to approve the proposal or to modify the scheme. A hearing authority cannot enlarge the limited authority conferred upon him, and an act done beyond that authority has no legal sanction. Since there was no valid order of approval by the State Government, the power to rescind the notification had not been exhausted. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 therefore enabled the State Government to rescind the earlier notification in the same manner in which it had been issued.

Conclusion: The rescission notification was valid, and the challenge based on the hearing authority's order failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants could claim any subsisting right to operate on routes overlapping the notified Saharanpur-Delhi route in view of the earlier nationalisation schemes and prior decisions.

Analysis: The Saharanpur-Delhi route had already been nationalised under the 1959 scheme framed under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and the later 1993 scheme continued that position. Once an approved scheme is published, private operators cannot operate on any part of the notified route unless the scheme itself permits it. The route stood fully nationalised for exclusive operation by the State transport undertaking, and earlier decisions had already limited private operation only to the extent expressly recognised in those proceedings. The appellants' permits overlapped the notified route and therefore had no legal efficacy against the nationalised scheme.

Conclusion: The appellants had no enforceable right to operate on the overlapping notified route.

Final Conclusion: The State Government's rescission of the proposed modification was sustained, and the attempts to revive private operation on the notified route were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A limited hearing authority empowered only to receive objections cannot approve or modify an approved scheme under Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and a route fully covered by a valid nationalisation scheme excludes private permits unless the scheme itself authorises them.

---