https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283181 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. en-us Tue, 01 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Sep 2019 14:19:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283181 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 01 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283181