Statutory hearing rights under route nationalisation schemes cannot be bypassed when maintainable objections remain undecided.

An earlier judgment confined to the Saharanpur-Delhi route could not be extended by implication to 38 additional routes in a draft nationalisation scheme. Under the statutory procedure, objections to a proposed scheme had to be published, heard and decided on merits before approval, because the right of objection and hearing under the Motor Vehicles Act provisions was a valuable statutory safeguard. As the objections relating to the 38 routes had not been disposed of on merits, the competent authority could not lawfully close the hearing or approve the scheme for those routes without compliance with the prescribed procedure. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration of maintainable objections on the 38 routes.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier decision in Ram Krishna Verma governed only the Saharanpur-Delhi route or extended to the 38 other routes in the draft scheme; (ii) Whether objections to the draft scheme relating to the 38 routes could be closed and the scheme approved without hearing the objectors.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier decision in Ram Krishna Verma governed only the Saharanpur-Delhi route or extended to the 38 other routes in the draft scheme

Analysis: The earlier litigation history, the scope of the prior decisions, and the language of the judgment relied upon showed that the controversy previously decided was confined to the Saharanpur-Delhi route. The later draft scheme, though published pursuant to that history, introduced 38 additional routes. The earlier decision could not be read by implication as approving or finally disposing of objections to those additional routes.

Conclusion: The earlier decision was confined to the Saharanpur-Delhi route and did not determine the 38 other routes.

Issue (ii): Whether objections to the draft scheme relating to the 38 routes could be closed and the scheme approved without hearing the objectors

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the corresponding provisions in Section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 required publication of the proposed scheme, receipt of objections, and hearing before approval. Those provisions were held to be pari materia, and the right to file objections and be heard was treated as a valuable statutory right. Since objections relating to the 38 routes had not been disposed of on merits, the competent authority could not lawfully close the hearing or approve the scheme in relation to those routes without considering the objections.

Conclusion: The objections to the 38 routes had to be heard and decided on merits before the scheme could be approved for those routes.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded in part, the High Court judgment was set aside insofar as the 38 routes were concerned, and the matter was remitted to the competent authority for fresh consideration of maintainable objections on those routes while the position regarding the Saharanpur-Delhi route remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A proposed nationalisation scheme cannot be approved for routes covered by maintainable objections unless those objections are heard and decided in accordance with the statutory procedure; an earlier judgment confined to one route cannot be extended by implication to other routes not actually adjudicated.

---