A Division Bench of the High Court rejected all the petitions except one.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15 1 79 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in C.W.C. No.
Number of companytentions were raised before the High Court, about the validity of the scheme, the procedure adopted while approving the scheme, the opportunity to raise objections and the companysideration of the objections.
K. Gambhir for the Respondent State The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. Petitioners in this group of petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution and petitions for special leave to appeal were at the relevant time holders of stage carriage permits granted to them under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Act for short , and were operating stage carriages on the routes for which permits were granted.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petitions Civil Nos.
226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
Kameshwar Nath for the Respondent.
A Scheme No.
Hence some petitions for special leave and other writ petitions filed by the petitioners who are operators of the stage carriages and who are affected by the curtailment of their permits companysequent upon the approved scheme companying into force.
12/79 respectively.
6150 7839/79.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution.
After objections were invited and heard, the scheme was finally approved and it came into force on January 20, 1979.
Consequently their permits were curtailed prohibiting them from operating their stage carriages on a portion of their routes which were overlapping with the numberified route.
L. Sanghi, S.K. Mehta, P.N. Puri and M.K. Dua for the Petitioners.
50 M was framed and publicised by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Corporation for short , companyering certain routes including i Rewa Shahdol and ii Satna Ramnagar, which were to be reserved for exclusive operation by the Corporation.
AND Writ Petitions Nos.435, 763 813 of 1979.
On the approved scheme companying into force part of the routes on which petitioners were operating overlapped with the numberified routes.
15/79 and P. No.
This action was challenged by filing writ petitions under Art.
