AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up today. The writ petition is for declaring the draft scheme published in Tamil Nadu Government
Gazette dt. 22-3-1983, in respect of the route Krishagiri to Kolar Gold fields via Kundarapalli, Veppanampalli, Kothakrishnapally,
Kanamanabally, Beemanganapally, Kamasandha and Kalari cannot have an extra-territorial authorisation of validity. In support of this submission,
reliance is placed on an unreported ruling of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in D. P. Sharma v. The Karnataka State Transport
Authority, W.Ps. 3496 to 3498 of 1982, dated 16th April, 1984 : (reported in (1985) 2 KLJ 16. The only point urged before me is that the draft
scheme does not have extra-territorial authorisation. In opposing this, the learned Advocate General relies on Premchand v. State of M.P., AIR
196 Mad 196 wherein at page 201, in Para 9 this very point was answered in the negative.
On a careful consideration of the above, I am of the view that to say that a draft scheme will not have extra-territorial operation itself is to plead
for an anomaly. With great respect, I am unable to share the view of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. There is absolutely nothing
to suggest under S. 68-C, occurring in Chap. IV-A, which has been held to be a Code with regard to nationalisation and that a draft scheme could
not have extra-territorial operation. It is well settled that a draft scheme merely is evidence of the intention proposing to nationalise a particular
route or an area. Thereafter, there is objection under S. 68-D. Those objections when raised the S.T.U. or the authority concerned will have to
follow a judicial procedure of hearing those objections and pass orders and that function has been held to be judicial. It is only after this, the draft
scheme, as proposed, is approved or modified depending upon the position, as on date, whether nationalisation would provide an efficient,
adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service. It is at this stage, S. 68-D(3) proviso which comes into play. The said
proviso runs as follows-
Provided that no such scheme which relates to any inter-State route shall be deemed to be an approved scheme unless it has been published in the
Official Gazette with the previous approval of the Central: Government.
Thus, it is clear there is no bar for the proposal to nationalise even beyond the territory of a particular State. That is exactly the view taken by the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Premchand Jain Vs. State of M.P. and Others, . With great respect, I am unable to share the reasoning of the High
Court of Karnataka because what the Supreme Court pointed out in K. Venkamma Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, was that
nationalisation of the inter State route does not become effective unless the proviso to S. 68-D(3) is complied with. It may not be correct to hold
that the position List the same with regard to the draft scheme. If it were to be an inter-State route, to become effective, it requires to satisfy the
proviso to S. 6803). It does not have any effect on a mere formulation of a scheme under S. 68-C which is a primary stage, as I said above.
Equally, taking clue from Art. 245, it cannot be contended that a scheme is a law, and, therefore, it could not have extra-territorial operation
because a draft scheme cannot be held to be law at all. It is only an approved scheme as has been held by the series of rulings of the Supreme
Court as well as other High Courts which has the effect of law within the meaning of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It cannot be urged that
because of the consequence of the formulation of a draft scheme, since S. 68-F will get attracted, the procedure under S. 68-D(3) proviso will
have to be followed. This is a statutory consequence. It is not to be construed as law within the meaning of Art. 19(1) of the Constitution. The writ
petition will stand dismissed. No costs.
Petition dismissed.