The scope of the hearing under S. 68-D (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, includes the taking of evidence, whether oral or documentary, if necessary for the State Government to arrive at a just conclusion with respect to the objections to the draft scheme.

Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : These two connected matters arise out of an order approving a scheme framed under Chap. IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, No. IV of 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and will be disposed of together. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. The appellant was plying a bus between Jaipur and Ajmer on a permit granted to him for three years by resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, dated December 16/17, 1958. In August, 1960, the State Government promulgated rules under S. 68-I of the Act, called the Rajasthan State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called the Rules). The Rules were framed for carrying out the purposes of Chap IV-A of the Act and provided inter alia for framing of schemes, hearing of objections, determination and payment of compensation, and other incidental matters. A draft scheme was published on September 7, 1960, for taking over the Jaipur-Ajmer route. The appellant made objections to the draft scheme within the time allowed by the notification thereof. The State Government appointed the Legal Remembrancer to hear and decide the objections under R. 7 of the Rules. It appears that in the meantime an application was made under Art.226 by some bus operators before the Rajasthan High Court challenging the constitutionality of S. 68-D of the Act and the legality of the Rules framed by the State Government. This application was dismissed and the High Court inter alia decided while considering R. 7(6) that it was not open to the officer hearing the objections to cancel the draft scheme and seems to have held that there was no such power even under S. 68-D (2) of the Act. This decision was given on November 9, 1960. The draft scheme came up for consideration before the officer appointed to hear objections on November 21, 1960. An application was made before him that the appellant should be permitted to give evidence on points of fact which were narrated in the application in order that the officer may be in a position to decide the objections justly. This application was rejected by the officer on the ground that there was no provision in the Rules for recording of evidence of witnesses. The matter then came up for consideration on November 23. 1960. On that date another application was made in which it was said that the appellant wanted to lead evidence to show that the draft scheme must be rejected in its entirety, and it was contended that the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court to the effect that it was not open to the officer to cancel a draft scheme was incorrect. This application was also rejected by the officer with the observation that he was bound hand and foot by the decision of the Rajasthan High Court and if there was anything wrong in the interpretation given by the High Court the remedy lay elsewhere. Thereafter the officer gave a hearing to the appellant in the sense that he heard arguments on behalf of the appellant, and approved the draft scheme by his order dated December 7, 1960. The approved scheme was then published on December 12, 1960. On January 9, 1961, the Regional Transport Authority informed the appellant that his permit was cancelled as from January 26, 1961, or such later date from which the buses of Rajasthan State Roadways begin to operate on the above-mentioned route. In the meantime, the appellant unsuccessfully moved the Rajasthan High Court, and his prayer for leave to appeal to this Court was also rejected. The appellant then applied for special leave to appeal to this Court which was granted; and that is how the matter has come up before us.

2. Two main points have been urged before us on behalf of the appellant, namely, (i) the officer was wrong in the view he took that it was not open to him to reject the draft scheme in its entirety, and (ii) the officer was wrong in holding that he could not take evidence, whether oral or documentary, and all that he had to do under S. 68-D of the A