Transport scheme approval upheld where objectors were not denied evidence and partial route exclusion was permissible.

Draft transport scheme approval was upheld where objectors raised only general objections and did not seek to lead evidence on any disputed material facts; the authority's mistaken view about rejecting the scheme in full did not, on these facts, vitiate consideration of the objections. Rendering a permit ineffective for only the overlapping portion of a route was treated as permissible partial exclusion under the scheme, and the discrimination claim failed for want of factual basis. Alleged differential treatment of some permit-holders did not establish Article 14 discrimination because the disparity was explained as an inadvertent oversight, not deliberate unequal treatment. The challenge failed and the appeals were dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the approval of the draft schemes was vitiated because the objectors were not given an effective hearing or an opportunity to lead evidence under the statutory inquiry. (ii) Whether a permit could be rendered ineffective for the overlapping portion of a route and whether such treatment amounted to discrimination by denying compensation. (iii) Whether the differential treatment of some permit-holders on overlapping routes disclosed unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14.

Issue (i): Whether the approval of the draft schemes was vitiated because the objectors were not given an effective hearing or an opportunity to lead evidence under the statutory inquiry.

Analysis: The objections before the authority were of a general character and did not show any real desire to adduce evidence on disputed facts. No application to lead evidence had in fact been made at the hearing stage, and the record did not establish that evidence was shut out. The authority's mistaken view that it could not reject the scheme in its entirety did not, on these facts, prevent a proper consideration of the objections on merits under the statutory provisions governing the scheme and objections.

Conclusion: The approval was not vitiated, and the objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether a permit could be rendered ineffective for the overlapping portion of a route and whether such treatment amounted to discrimination by denying compensation.

Analysis: A scheme framed under the statutory provision could provide for partial exclusion of private operators. Rendering a permit ineffective only for the overlapping portion of a route amounted to such partial exclusion. The argument of discrimination failed because no factual foundation was laid to show that the advantage of continuing to ply beyond the overlapping stretch was less beneficial than compensation on cancellation.

Conclusion: The practice of rendering permits ineffective for the overlapping portion was valid, and the discrimination challenge failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the differential treatment of some permit-holders on overlapping routes disclosed unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14.

Analysis: The alleged disparity was explained as an oversight and not as conscious or deliberate preference. Constitutional discrimination requires deliberate unequal treatment, and an inadvertent omission, especially one stated to be capable of correction, does not by itself establish a breach of equality.

Conclusion: No unconstitutional discrimination was made out.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the approved schemes failed on all substantial grounds, and the appeals were dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A draft transport scheme approved after consideration of objections is not invalidated where the objectors neither sought nor were denied evidence on material disputed facts, and partial exclusion of operators on an overlapping route is permissible so long as no conscious discrimination under Article 14 is established.

---