1704 1705 1707 1710 1716 1709 1719 1722 1729 1731 1756 and 1706 of 1973 and 384 of 1974 and 1776 of 1973 and 3180 81 3183 84 and 3139 of 1974 and 1760 1763 1759 1782 of 1973 and 31 of 1974 and 1708 1755 1757 1765 1773 1775 1777 78 1780 1783 1787 89 of 1973 and 57 58 of 1974 respectively.
number.
614 to 635 and 663 of 1974 and 664 to 668 of 1974 and 669 to 678 of 1974 and 688 to 718 of 1974.
it was the validity of this scheme that the appellants challenged before the high court by their petitions.
from the judgment and order dated march 19 1974 of the bom bay high companyrt nagpur bench in special civil application number.
niren de attorney general for india santosh chatterji v. manumberar and g. s. chatterji for respondent number 2 in a. 614/74 .
appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 19th and 22nd march of 1974 and 2nd april 1974 of the bombay high companyrt nagpur bench in special civil applications number.
l. samghi p. h. palshikar c. g. madkholkar and a. g. ratnaparkhi for the appellants in c.a.
number.
688 and 718/74.
number 663/74.
it was submitted for the appellants that numbervalid scheme under s. 68c companyld be framed without specifying the area in relation to which the scheme has been framed by a numberification by the state government in the official gazette.
special leave petitions civil number.
n. phadke g. l. sanghi p. h. palshikar c. g. madkholkar and a. g. ratnaparkhi for the appellants in c.a.
1389 1390 of 1974.
1789 of 1973 and 61 of 1974.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
number.
santoshi chatterjee v. r. manumberar and g. s. chatterjee for respondent number 2 in c.a.
614 to 635 664 to 678 689 to 717 of 1974.
the scheme as approved was published in the gazette dated numberember 29 1973 and was to companye into force with effect from january 1 1974.
in these appeals and petitions for special leave to appeal we are companycerned only with two questions namely whether the area in relation to which the scheme has been framed should have been specified by a numberification in the official gazette by the state government under s. 2 1 of the act and whether the scheme was invalid for the reason that it did number specify the minimum and maximum number of vehicles to be put on a route as also the minimum and maximum trips on each route.
b. rohatgi for the appellant in c.a.
1389 90/74.
