Severability and substantial compliance upheld in transport scheme implementation, preserving valid routes and notice-based enforcement.

An approved stage carriage scheme was held to survive despite inclusion of routes not originally published, because the invalid routes were severable from the valid routes. The absence of a specific implementation date did not vitiate approval, as fixation of the operative date belonged to the implementing authority. Applications by the State transport undertaking were treated as timely despite presentation on a public holiday and omission of fee, since six clear weeks were required, the papers were received, and the defect could be returned for correction under the applicable rule. Notice before implementation was found sufficient where operators were informed, heard, and the effective date for existing permits was fixed after that process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the inclusion of routes not originally published under Section 68-C in the approved scheme invalidated the entire scheme or whether the offending routes were severable; (ii) Whether the absence of a date for implementation in the approved scheme rendered it invalid; (iii) Whether the applications made by the State Transport undertaking complied with Section 57(2), including the requirement of fee payment and the effect of presentation on a public holiday, and whether the return of applications under Rule 153-A was invalid; (iv) Whether due notice was given before implementing the scheme and rendering existing permits ineffective beyond the specified date.

Issue (i): Whether the inclusion of routes not originally published under Section 68-C in the approved scheme invalidated the entire scheme or whether the offending routes were severable.

Analysis: The approved scheme contained several distinct routes. Even assuming that two routes were added without prior publication and were therefore invalid, the remaining routes were complete in themselves and capable of independent operation. The principle of severability applied: where the valid part is separable from the invalid part and can stand on its own, the entire scheme is not vitiated. The reasoning adopted was that the court should not speculate that the authority would have refused approval for the remaining routes had the disputed routes been excluded.

Conclusion: The disputed routes were severable, and the remainder of the approved scheme remained valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of a date for implementation in the approved scheme rendered it invalid.

Analysis: The date of implementation was treated as a matter of detail arising at the stage of enforcement, not as an integral element of approval under Section 68-D. The Regional Transport Authority, as the implementing authority under Section 68-F, had the function of fixing the operative date after approval of the scheme. The absence of a date in the approved scheme therefore did not affect its legality.

Conclusion: The approved scheme was not invalid merely because it did not specify the implementation date.

Issue (iii): Whether the applications made by the State Transport undertaking complied with Section 57(2), including the requirement of fee payment and the effect of presentation on a public holiday, and whether the return of applications under Rule 153-A was invalid.

Analysis: The expression requiring applications to be made not less than six weeks before the desired effective date was construed as requiring six clear weeks, excluding both terminal dates. The applications were presented and received on the relevant date, notwithstanding that it was a public holiday, because the office had staff for urgent work and the applications were in fact received. The omission to enclose the fee did not invalidate the presentation, since Rule 153-A expressly directed that such applications should not be rejected on that technical ground and should instead be returned for rectification. Returning the papers for correction was treated as a ministerial step, not as a refusal to entertain the applications. The rule was not read as enlarging the statutory time limit.

Conclusion: The applications were validly presented in time, the return for correction was proper, and the objections based on fee and holiday presentation failed.

Issue (iv): Whether due notice was given before implementing the scheme and rendering existing permits ineffective beyond the specified date.

Analysis: The statutory framework distinguished between the grant of permits to the State Transport undertaking and the elimination of existing services. For the first, no public participation was required once the application conformed to the approved scheme and Chapter IV. For the second, notice was required to the affected operators. Here, notice was issued, the operators were informed of the proposed implementation, they were heard at the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, and the resolution fixed the date beyond which their permits would cease to be effective. This amounted to substantial compliance with the rule requiring due notice.

Conclusion: Due notice was given, and the implementation proceedings were valid.

Final Conclusion: The principal challenges to the approved schemes and their implementation failed, except for the two specified routes which were excluded from the scheme in the particular petitions in which the respondents made the concession. The remaining petitions were dismissed, while those two petitions were allowed to that limited extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an invalid component of an approved transport scheme is severable from the valid portions, the scheme survives; procedural requirements for implementation are satisfied by timely presentation and substantial compliance with notice obligations, and a technical omission such as non-payment of fee may be cured under a permissive rule without defeating the statutory time limit.

---