SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1959 Supreme(SC) 143

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
21st August, 1959.
B.P. SINHA, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND K. SUBBA RAO, JJ.
Gullappalli Nageswararao and others (in C.A. No. 198 of 1959), Chennupati Satyanarayana and others (in C.A. No. 199 of 200 of 1959), Appellants
Versus
State of A.P. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 198 to 200 of 1959.
Advocate Appeared
Mr. N.C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate (M/s G. Suryanarayana, K. Mangach and T.V.R. Tatachari, Advocates with him), for Appellants; Mr. D. Narasaraju, Advocate-General for the State of Andhra Pradesh (M/s D. Venkatappiah Sastry and T.M. Sen, Advocates with him), for Respondents.

Advocates:
D.NARASARAJU, D.V.Sastry, G.SURYANARAYANA MURTHY, K.MANGACHARY, N.C.CHATTERJI, T.M.SEN, T.V.R.TATACHARI

The Chief Minister was not disqualified from hearing the objections to the scheme of nationalization on the ground of bias because he was not a party to the dispute and was only carrying out his statutory duty.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - NATIONALIZATION OF TRANSPORT - SCHEME FOR - HEARING OF OBJECTIONS - CHIEF MINISTER - BIAS - WHETHER DISQUALIFIED FROM HEARING OBJECTIONS - ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ACT, 1950 - S. 68C - ANDHRA PRADESH MOTOR VEHICLES RULES, R. 11.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants, who were carrying on motor transport business in Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh, challenged the scheme of nationalization of transport in the State and the subsequent orders of the Regional Transport Authority cancelling their stage carriage permits. The scheme was approved by the Chief Minister after hearing objections from the appellants and others. The appellants contended that the Chief Minister was disqualified from hearing the objections on the ground of bias and that the Regional Transport Authority had not given them due notice before cancelling their permits.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Chief Minister was not disqualified from hearing the objections to the scheme of nationalization. The Court distinguished the case from Rex v. Bath Compensation Authority, 1925-1 KB 685, where the licensing justices who referred the matter to the compensation authority also sat on the tribunal and voted against the renewal of the licence, on the ground that in the present case the Chief Minister was not a party to the dispute and was only carrying out his statutory duty. The Court also held that the Regional Transport Authority had not complied with the provisions of R. 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, which required it to give due notice to the persons affected before making an order cancelling their permits. However, the Court refused to interfere with the order of the High Court dismissing the appellants' petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, on the ground that the appellants had failed to show that they would suffer any practical benefit from such interference.

Issues: 1. Whether the Chief Minister was disqualified from hearing the objections to the scheme of nationalization on the ground of bias. 2. Whether the Regional Transport Authority had given due notice to the appellants before cancelling their permits.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Chief Minister was not disqualified from hearing the objections to the scheme of nationalization on the ground of bias because he was not a party to the dispute and was only carrying out his statutory duty. 2. The Regional Transport Authority had not complied with the provisions of R. 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, which required it to give due notice to the persons affected before making an order cancelling their permits.

Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed.

Judgement

SUBBA RAO J.: These appeals on certificates are directed against the judgement of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants under Art. 226 of the Constitution for issuing writs of certiorari to quash the orders of the Government of Andhra Pradesh confirming a scheme of nationalisation of transport and the subsequent orders of the Regional Transport Authority cancelling the appellants stage carriage permits.

2. These appeals are the off-shoot of the judgement of this Court in Gullapalli Nagesara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1959 SC 308 delivered on November 5, 1958. The facts were fully stated therein. It would be only necessary to recapitulate briefly the facts relevant to the present enquiry: The appellants were carrying on motor transport business for several years in Krishna District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Shri Guru Pershad, styled as the General Manager of the State Transport Undertaking of the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport, published a scheme for nationalisation of motor transport in the said State from the date to be notified by the State Government. Objections to the said proposed scheme were invited by the State Government, and the appellants, among others, filed their objections. On December 26, 1957, the Secretary in charge of the Transport Department gave a personal hearing to the objectors and heard the representations made on behalf of the State Transport Undertaking. The entire material gathered by him was placed before the Chief Minister of the State in charge of transport, who made the order approving the scheme. The approved scheme was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated January 9, 1958, and it was directed to come into force with effect from January 10, 1958. Thereafter the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporations, which was formed under the provisions of the Road\Transport Corporation Act, 1950, took over the Undertaking and proceeded to implement the scheme under a phased programme. The appellants moved this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution for quashing the said scheme on various grounds. This Court rejected most of the objections raised by the appellants except in regard to two pertaining to the hearing given by the Secretary in charge of the Transport Department which resulted in the quashing of the order of the Government approving the scheme and directing it to forbear from taking over any of the routes on which the appellants were engaged in transport business. After the said order notices were issued by the Government to all the objectors informing them that a personal hearing would be given by the Chief Minister on December 9, 1958, and they were further informed that they were at liberty to file further objections before November 30, 1958. The Chief Minister heard the representatives of the objectors and the Corporation and passed orders dated December 19, 1958, rejecting the objections filed and approving the scheme as originally published. The order approving the scheme was duly published by the Government in the official Gazette on December 22, 1958. On December 23, 1958, the Corporation applied to the Road Transport Authority for the issue of permits for plying stage carriages and for eliminating the permits granted to the private bus operators. On December 24, 1958, the said Authority passed orders rendering the permits of the appellants ineffective from December 24, 1958, and also issuing permits to the Corporation in respect of the routes previously operated by the appellants. The said orders were communicated to the appellants on December 24, 1958, and they were also directed to stop plying their buses from December 25, 1958, on their respective routes. The appellants, who were aggrieved by the orders of the Government as well as by the order of the Regional Transport Authority filed petitions in the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing t























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top