Judgment

DWIVEDI, J.:- All these appeals now raise a common question of law and are being decided by a common judgment.

2. All the appellants were operators of State carriages in the State of Rajasthan. They held regular permits for various routes in the State.

3. The State has a Road Transport Corporation. It is called the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. It was constituted on October 1, 1964 under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. It has a General Manager.

4. Section 19 (2)(c) of the aforesaid Act empowers the Corporation to acquire routes for plying buses and to exclude private operators therefrom. In 1956 Parliament inserted Chapter IV-A in the Motor Vehicles Act for acquiring routes. Section 68-I is to be found in that Chapter. It enables the State Government to make rules to carry into effect the provisions of the Chapter. The State of Rajasthan has made cerain rules under this section. Rules 3 and 4 are material for our purpose. Rule 3 provides that a scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act will be prepared by the General Manager of the State Transport Undertaking. Rule 4 provides that the scheme shall be published in the Gazette with certain particulars specified therein.

5. Acting under Rules 3 and 4, the General Manager of the Corporation published schemes in the Gazette for nationalisation of the appellants routes on September 22, 1969. Thereafter the procedure provided for in the provisions in Chapter IV-A was gone into; and the schemes then became final. Then the appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court of Rajasthan challenging the schemes. The schemes were challenged on various grounds. But the main ground of attack was that the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, and not its General Manager, could prepare and publish a scheme. The validity of Rules 3 and 4 was also questioned.

6. The Rajasthan High Court rejected all the grounds of attack and dismissed the writ petitions. So these appeals.

7. During pendency of the appeals the Governor of Rajasthan has enacted an ordinance. The Ordinance is called the Motor Vehicles (Rajasthan Amendment) Ordinance, 1974 (Ordinance No.3 of 1974). It was published in the State Gazette, dated January 23, 1974. Section 4 of the ordinance is relevant for our purpose. After Section 68C in Chapter IV-A, Section 4 adds a new Section 68CC. The new section reads:

"For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where in exercise of the powers conferred by rules made under this Chapter, any scheme has been prepared or published under Secton 68C, by the General Manager of a State Transport Undertaking or by any other officer shall be deemed to have been prepared or published by the State Transport Undertaking and the scheme shall not be questioned in any Court or before any other authority merely on the ground that the same has been prepared or published by the General Manager or the other officer".

8. All counsel for the appellants have made the concession that if Section 4 of the Ordinance is constitutional, other points could not survive and the appeals would fail. Accordingly we have heard counsel for the parties first on the constitutionality of Section 4. After hearing all of them we are of opinion that Section 4 is validly made by the Governor.

9. The main argument is that the subject matter of Section 4 falls within item 43 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. So the State Legislature could not enact Section 4. The rival contention of Dr. L. N. Singhvi, Advocate-General of Rajasthan, is that the subject-matter of Section 4, in its true nature and character falls, within items 35 and 42 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.

10. Item 43 of List I reads: "In corporation, regulation and winding up of trading corporations, including banking, insurance and financial corporations but not including co-operative societies". Item 35 of List II reads: "Mechanically propelled vehicles including the principles on wh