Judgment

K.RAMASWAMY, J.:- This appeal by special leave arises against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated October 3, 1977 in Writ Petn. No. 3343/ 75. The Govt. in exercise of power under S. 68-D in Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 approved a draft scheme framed under S. 68-C through G.O.M.S. No. 753, Home (Transport) Dept. dated June, 1975, published in the gazette on June 4, 1975, relating to the route Anantapur to Dharmavaram via Mamillapalli. The scheme No. 82 of 1974 was questioned in Writ Petition No. 3827/75 and the same was upheld by a single Judge on September 30, 1975 and on appeal in Writ Appeal No. 80 of 1975 dated November 14, 1975, the Division Bench upheld the same. While approving the scheme the routes, namely, (1) Kodikonda to Anantapur via Dharmavaram, (2) Bukkapatnam to Anantapur via Dharmavaram, (3) Interstate route Virechal to Dharmavaram via Anantapur, (4) Anantapur to Puttaparti via Dharmavaram to the extent indicated in the note thereunder were exempted from the scheme. Thereby the partial exemption of these routes from the approved scheme stood upheld. Thereafter the two respondents filed the writ petition challenging the self same scheme contending that the non exemption of the routes i.e. Kalyandrug to Pernapalli via Dharamavaram and Anantapur to Perur via Dharmavaram offend Art. 14 of the Constitution. The High Court upheld the contention and held that their exclusion is discriminatory. Accordingly the High Court directed that the case "worth consideration in the case of exempted routes". The Govt. was directed to consider their case and to pass appropriate orders to accord exemption from the scheme. Questioning the correctness of the judgment, this appeal has been filed.

2. Under S. 68-C, where the State Transport Undertaking is of the opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that the road "transport services" in general or any particular route of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking, "whether to the exclusion, complete or partial", of other persons or otherwise, the State Transport Undertaking may prepare a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the service proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and such other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed, and shall cause every such scheme to be published in the Official Gazette and also in such other manner as the State Government may direct. The draft scheme accordingly was prepared on the above routes and was published. Objections had been filed. In exercise of the power under sub-sec. (2) of S. 68D the State Govt. after considering the objections and giving opportunity to the objectors and the representatives and also of the State Transport Undertaking approved the scheme and excluded the aforesaid four routes. As stated earlier, the scheme was upheld by the High Court and became final. The question emerges whether the non-exclusion of two transport operators, the respondents herein offends Art. 14.

3. The contention of Sri Narsamhulu, the learned Counsel for the operators, is that the State Govt. having exempted four routes from the scheme, the respondents too are entitled to parity of treatment and the denial offends their right to equality guaranteed under Art. 14 of the Constitution. We find difficult to give our acceptance to this contention. It is true, as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the State Govt. in the writ petition, before the High Court that inadequate transport facilities prevailing on those four routes and density of the population that need transport service by the private operators induced the Govt. to give exemption and that the respondents also may be situated in the similar circumstances. But by the very language of