The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with statutory objections filing and the public interest in providing efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated passenger road transport services.

O.P. 5003/1990 is. Filed by Kasaragod District Bus Owners Association represented by its Secretary, M. Balakrishnan Nambiar and O.P. 5561 is filed by individual operator. Both the original petitions challenge the nationalisation of 5 routes mentioned in the draft scheme lying between Kasaragod and Kanhangad. Since the challenge is against one and the same notification, I refer exhibits with respect to O.P. 5003/1990. As the Government of Kerala was of opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated passenger road transport service, it was necessary in the public interest that the passenger road transport services mentioned in the 5 routes should be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking, viz, the third respondent, the first respondent published a scheme in Kerala Gazette dated 18-1-1990. The scheme provided that the 5 routes detailed in annexure to Fjrt.P2 will be operated by State Transport Undertaking in the manner provided therein. It is also provided that the transport authorities shall not grant any permit or vary an existing permit to operate any moffussil or town services affecting any of the routes in relation to any portion between Kasaragod and Kalnaclu Junction. Inter State services operating on the strength of agreements entered into between Kerala and neighbouring States will not be affected by the scheme. The other services viz. existing service was allowed to operate only on the portion between Kalnadu Junction and Kanhangad. The maximum and minimum number of details of the vehicles etc. are provided. The scheme stated that the latest type of buses would be provided to give maximum comfort to the passengers. The buses will be equipped with rubber cushioned seats and wide gangway. The schedule mentioned that about 20% of the scheduled number of buses calculated on the total number of fleet operating in them of fusil routes should be kept in reserve. It is stated that service will be introduced only after routes concerned are declared for vehicle traffic by the authorities concerned. The draft of the scheme is also published in Desabhimani daily dated 7-2-1990. The notification provides that any person affected by the scheme may file his objection addressed to the Secretary to Government of Kerala, Public Works and Transport (M) Department, Trivandrum within 30 days from the date of publication of the scheme in the manner specified under the Motor Vehicles Act. S.100 read with R.237 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules stipulates the manner of filing objections and the details to be given in the objection. The petitioner in O.P. 5003/ 1990-filed objection and the other petitioner in O.P.5561/1990did not file any objection. The petitioner's objection in O.P.5003/1990 isExt. P4. Ext.P4 objection is not seen in the proper form mentioned in R.237. Ext.P4 raised three objections. The first of the objections is to effect that there are many private operators operating upto Chemnad Ferry and if the route from Kasaragod to Kanhangad through the bridge over Chandragiri is nationalised, it will not become profitable for the private operators to conduct the service. Therefore they will be forced to cancel the service itself. In that view of the matter the travelling public will be inconvenienced. The second objection is that on the commissioning of the bridge over Chandragiri River, the distance from Kanhangad to Kasaragod will be considerably reduced and therefore people will travel only by the stage carriage passing through the Chandragiri bridge. If the service of the private operators also is allowed it will be advantageous to the travelling public. Lastly it is stated that the nationalisation will result in the decline of the private bus service in the route. Hence it is prayed that the nationalisation proposal itself be dropped. The objections were heard by the Transport Minister on 9-4-1990. At the meeting the petitioner says that he has sub