IMPORTANT POINT
Adequate opportunity was given to the objectors-appellants to the proposed notified scheme of road transport routes under Section 100(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and that their rejection by Government is not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as the proposal is in public interest covered and saved by Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 99 and 100 (= Sections 68-C and 68-D of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939)-Preparation and publication of proposal regarding road transport service of a State Transport Undertaking-Notifications to nationalise certain road transport routes by proposed schemes-Objections that it is violative of Article 19(1)(g) and is also in violation of principles of natural justice-Dismissed-Upheld in writ petitions-Appeals against to Supreme Court-Petitioner found to have been given an opportunity of being heard but did not avail it-Nationalisation was in public interest-Allegations of private loss-Whether rightly rejected by Government and High Court? (Yes)-Case law discussed-Appeals dismissed.
       Held : Judged in the light of the statutory provisions and the principles laid down by the aforementioned Constitution Bench the position is inescapable that the main contention raised by the appellants that in view of the loss suffered by them in operating the services under the permits granted to them the proposed nationalization scheme should be postponed, was clearly outside the scope of considerations under the statute, and therefore, extraneous and irrelevant. (Para 25)
       Held further : We have perused the records which have been filed by the learned counsel for the respondent and we are satisfied that adequate opportunity was given to the objectors-appellants to place their case before the Minister. The question whether the appellants were granted due opportunity of hearing before the Minister is essentially a question of fact on which the High Court had held against the writ petitioners. Ordinarily this Court does not interfere with findings of fact recorded by the High Court. Testing the case on hand in the light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned decided cases we have no hesitation to hold that in the particular facts and circumstances of the case the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petitions as devoid of merit and its judgment is unassailable. Accordingly, these appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 20,000/-. (Paras 29, 30 and 31)

JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

2. The controversy raised in these cases relates to validity of the Notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under G.O. Ms. No. 13 to 24 Transport, Roads and Building (Tr-III) dated 27.1.2000 approving the Schemes submitted by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ("APSRTC" for short) for exclusive operation of stage carriage services on certain routes in exercise of the powers conferred by section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988) (for short the Act ). Since the similar question of fact and law were involved in these cases they were decided by the High Court by a common judgment rendered on 21.4.2000 in writ petition Nos. 1546,1552 1553 and 1554 of 2000. These appeals were heard together with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. While appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14633-34/2000 were filed by M. Madan Mohan Rao and Y. Rajendra Prasad who were the petitioners in W.P. No. 1546/2000 and 1553/2000 respectively; the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15561/2000 has been filed by K. Mallikarjuna Rao who was the petitioner in W.P. No. 1552 of 2000.

3. By the Notification issued under G.O. Rt. No. 67, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Tr.III-2), dated 29.1.1999 published in the A.P. Gazette dated 1.2.1999 the State Government published the schemes as specified in Schedule I & II thereunder which were proposed to be notified under sub-section (1) of section 100 of the Act inviting objections or suggestions from any person within a period of 30 days from the date of Gazette s publication.

4. In Scheme 1 the route proposed was K.R. Market - Chinakakani, in Krishna District (via PNBS, Krishnalanka, Fire Station, Kanakadurga Varadhi, Vijayawada Club, Sundaraiah Nagar X Roads, Vaddeswaram X Roads, Atmakur X Roads, Mangalagiri (19.5 Kms.). The service was described as Mofussil service/Stage carriage. Against column 5 of Schedule II it was stated that "the following number of round trips are proposed to be operated to the complete exclusion of all other persons holding stage carriage permits on the proposed route and such other persons holding stage carriage permits on the routes overlapping completely or partially on the proposed route except to the extent specified in the note hereunder".

5. Similarly, under Scheme 2 the route was K.R. Market to Pedavadlapuri, in Krishna District (via PNBS, Krishnalanka, Fire Station, Kanakadurga Varadhi, Vijayawada Club, Sundaraiah Nagar X Roads, Vaddeswaram X Roads, Atmakur X Roads, Mangalagiri (19.5 km).

6. In Scheme 3 the route notified was described as Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Office to Kundavari Kandrika, (Via K.R. Market, Chittinagar, Milk Project, Pamula Kaluva, Nynavaram (16 kms).

7. It was stated under each of the aforementioned Schemes that proposal shall not affect: (1) The State Transport Undertakings; and (2) The services operated by the Devasthanams.

8. In pursuance of the aforementioned notification the appellants filed objections addressed to the Secretary, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. The said objections were taken up for hearing before the Minister (Transport) on 20.1.2000 along with objections filed by other operators who are not parties in the appeals. The Minister by order dated 25.1.2000 disposed of the objections relating to Scheme No. 1 of 1999 and 2 of 1999 on the following terms :

"I have examined the above points carefully. The objections do not merit any consideration. After due consideration of all issues. Since the route length of draft scheme No. 1/99 is 19.5 kms. And that of draft scheme No. 2/99 is also 19.5 kms and the (via) places are common in both cases, there is no purpose in approving both schemes which relates to identical routes. Hence, draft scheme No. 1/99 is dropped."

9. Similarly, in respect of draft Scheme No. 2/99 and 3/99 the Minister by separate but identical o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 695

Cases Referred (3)