Motor vehicle nationalisation schemes must rest on independent statutory judgment and definite service particulars to be valid.

A nationalisation scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 must reflect the State Transport Undertaking's independent opinion formed in public interest, and a scheme made to implement the Chief Minister's wishes is invalid. The scheme must also state definite particulars of the proposed services, including the number of vehicles and trips, so that objections can be raised and adequacy assessed; vague minimum and maximum ranges do not satisfy the statutory and rule-based requirement. Where the routes are wholly within the State, inclusion of services does not attract the need for previous Central Government approval under the inter-State route proviso. The Regional Transport Authority remains competent to act under an approved scheme notwithstanding inconsistent route-length restrictions in the general rules.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned schemes were vitiated because they were not formulated on the independent opinion of the State Transport Undertaking but at the behest of the Chief Minister and for extraneous political considerations; (ii) Whether the schemes failed to comply with the statutory requirements as to particulars, including the specification of vehicles and trips, and thereby contravened the Act and the Rules; (iii) Whether inclusion of inter-State routes without previous approval of the Central Government invalidated the schemes; (iv) Whether the Regional Transport Authority was competent to entertain and grant applications under the approved schemes notwithstanding the route-length restrictions under the rules.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned schemes were vitiated because they were not formulated on the independent opinion of the State Transport Undertaking but at the behest of the Chief Minister and for extraneous political considerations.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Chapter IV-A required the State Transport Undertaking itself to form the opinion under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 that nationalisation was necessary in public interest. The materials showed that the Corporation had earlier accepted a different order of nationalisation, but after a conference with the Chief Minister it altered course and selected Kurnool first. The sequence of events, the Chief Minister's own public statement, the absence of a satisfactory independent explanation, and the failure to displace the inference drawn from the surrounding circumstances established that the change was made to give effect to the Chief Minister's wishes. A choice made on such a basis could not satisfy Section 68-C, even though the Corporation was a statutory undertaking.

Conclusion: The schemes were invalid for want of compliance with Section 68-C and the challenge succeeded on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the schemes failed to comply with the statutory requirements as to particulars, including the specification of vehicles and trips, and thereby contravened the Act and the Rules.

Analysis: Section 68-C required the scheme to contain particulars of the services proposed to be rendered, and Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1957 required the number of vehicles and the total number of trips to be stated. The schemes stated only minimum and maximum figures, and in several routes the spread between the two was wide enough to leave the actual service uncertain. That uncertainty defeated the purpose of enabling affected operators to object effectively and of enabling the approving authority to assess adequacy. The court found that, at least on the facts of the present schemes, the variable range did not amount to the definite specification required by the rule.

Conclusion: The schemes were also defective for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of definite particulars.

Issue (iii): Whether inclusion of inter-State routes without previous approval of the Central Government invalidated the schemes.

Analysis: The routes proposed to be nationalised lay wholly within the State, and the private operators' right to ply beyond the State border was not taken away by the schemes. Since the schemes did not, in substance, cover an inter-State route within the meaning of the proviso to Section 68-D(3), the requirement of previous Central Government approval was not attracted.

Conclusion: The objection based on the proviso to Section 68-D(3) failed.

Issue (iv): Whether the Regional Transport Authority was competent to entertain and grant applications under the approved schemes notwithstanding the route-length restrictions under the rules.

Analysis: Section 68-F(1) specifically directed the Regional Transport Authority to issue the permit to the State Transport Undertaking in pursuance of an approved scheme, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Chapter IV. By force of Section 68-B also, inconsistent provisions in Chapter IV and the Rules stood excluded to that extent. Accordingly, Rule 141 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Act Rules could not control applications under Section 68-F(1) in the manner suggested by the appellants.

Conclusion: The Regional Transport Authority was competent, and this objection failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded because the schemes were struck down for breach of the statutory requirements governing formation and publication of the scheme, while the other objections were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A nationalisation scheme under Section 68-C must be the result of the State Transport Undertaking's own independent opinion formed in public interest and must contain the definite particulars required by the statute and rules; a scheme made to implement an directive or supported by uncertain particulars is invalid.

---