1. Challenge to the nationalization of road transport routes and subsequent cancellation of stage carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 396
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
11th December 1961
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 325 of 1961
Kalyan Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
With Petns. Nos. 180, 181& 205 of l961.
1. Sardar Singh (In Petn. No, 180 of 61) 2. Lal Singh (in Petn. No 181 of 61) and 3. Bharat Raj Singh (In Petn. No. 205 of 61) Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others (in all petitions), Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 325 of 1961 with Petns. Nos. 180, 181 and 205 of 1961.
Advocates appeared
M/s S. N. Kacker and J. P. Goyal, Advocates, for Appellant (In C. A. No. 325 of 1961) and Petitioner (in Petn. No. 205 of 1961); Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India and Mr. K. L. Misra, Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh (M/s. H. N. Seth, J. K. Srivastava and C. P. Lal, Advocates, with them), for Respondents (In C. A. No. 325 of 1961 and Petn. No. 205 of 1961); Mr. J. P. Goyal. Advocate, for Petitioners (In Petn. Nos. 180 and181 of 1961); Mr. C. P. Lal, Advocate, for Respondents (In Petn. Nos.180 and 181 of 1961).
Advocates:
C.P.LAL, H.N.SANYAL, H.N.SETH, J.K.SRIVASTAVA, J.P.GOYAL, K.L.MISHRA, S.N.KACKAR
C.P.LAL, H.N.SANYAL, H.N.SETH, J.K.SRIVASTAVA, J.P.GOYAL, K.L.MISHRA, S.N.KACKAR
A state government running a transport undertaking is considered the 'state transport undertaking' for initiating nationalisation schemes. Once such a scheme is approved, the subsequent cancellation of permits is an administrative, not quasi-judicial, act.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 68A, 68C, 68D and 68F - Nationalisation of road transport services - Initiation of scheme - State transport undertaking - Where a state government runs a transport undertaking, the opinion formed by the state government is deemed to be the opinion of the state transport undertaking under Section 68C. There is no legal distinction between an undertaking run by a department of a state government and one run by the state government itself; in either case, the undertaking is a state transport undertaking. (Paras 9, 10 and 11)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section 68F - Cancellation of permits - Nature of function - Once a nationalisation scheme is approved and becomes final, the action taken by the transport authority to cancel or refuse renewal of permits is purely consequential and administrative in nature, not quasi-judicial. The authority is bound by the terms of the approved scheme and its duty is merely to do what is necessary to give effect to the provisions of the scheme. (Paras 16 and 18)
(C) Appellate Jurisdiction - New grounds - A party is not entitled to raise a new ground of challenge for the first time before the highest court, except in exceptional circumstances, particularly when such a plea was not raised in the original writ petition or before the high court. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
A permit holder for a stage carriage route challenged the nationalisation of the route. The permit holder contended that the scheme was invalid because it was initiated by the state government rather than a distinct state transport undertaking and that the objections were heard by an unauthorised officer. Following the approval of the scheme, the permit was cancelled under the statutory provisions.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the state government running an undertaking is the state transport undertaking. The challenge to the officer's authority to hear objections was barred as it was not raised in the lower court. The cancellation of the permit was a mechanical consequence of the validly approved scheme.
Issues: Whether the state government can initiate a nationalisation scheme as the state transport undertaking; whether the cancellation of permits under an approved scheme is a quasi-judicial or administrative act.
Ratio Decidendi: A state government acting through its departments is the state transport undertaking; therefore, its opinion satisfies the requirements of Section 68C. Furthermore, actions taken under Section 68F(2) to give effect to an approved scheme are administrative and not quasi-judicial, as the authority is tied down by the terms of the approved scheme.
Result: Appeal and Petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Validity of schemes initiated by State Government instead of State transport undertaking; legality of permit cancellation and administrative delegation of power. (Para 4 )
3. State Government running an undertaking acts as the undertaking; permit cancellation under approved schemes is a mechanical administrative act, not quasi-judicial. (Para 9 , 11 , 16 , 18 )
4. Opinion formed by State Government running a transport undertaking constitutes the opinion of the State transport undertaking under Section 68C, Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 9 , 11 )
5. Appeal and writ petitions dismissed with costs. (Para 19 )
6. Does a scheme initiated by the State Government satisfy the requirement of being initiated by a State transport undertaking under Section 68C?
Yes, where the State Government runs the undertaking, the opinion formed by the State Government is legally the opinion of the State transport undertaking. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
7. Is the cancellation of permits by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 68F(2) a quasi-judicial function?
No, it is a purely administrative and mechanical act to give effect to the provisions of an already approved nationalization scheme. (Para 16 , 18 )
8. What is the effect of a final nationalization scheme on existing permits?
A scheme that is validly promulgated and becomes final under Section 68D(3) extinguishes the rights of operators to ply vehicles under their permits. (Para 14 )
Judgment
SHAH, J. : The appeal and the writ petitions practically raise the same points and may be disposed of together. At the outset we shall briefly state the facts relevant to each of the said proceedings.
2. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 325 of 1961 held a permit for plying stage carriage on the Kanpur-Bela-Bidhuna route via Chaubepur, in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The entire route is 68 miles long, and a part of the route 16 miles in length i.e., Kanpur to Chaubepur, is a notified route. This part was common between the said route and the Kanpur-Chaubepur-Sarai Miran route, which was a nationalised route. A condition was, therefore, attached to the appellant s permit that he would not be entitled to pick up passengers or drop them between Kanpur and Chaubepur. His permit was to expire on June 10, 1960. Before the said date, be applied for renewal of his permit, and on May 20, 1960 it was published in the U. P. Government Gazette calling for objections. On the same day, the State Government published a notification in the Gazette proposing to nationalise the said route. As the application for renewal could not be disposed of before the expiry of the period fixed in the permit, a temporary permit for the route was granted to the appellant. On July 19, 1960 the application for renewal of the appellant s permit was considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur, and his permit was renewed for three years with effect from July 23, 1960 only in respect of a part of the old route, namely, Chaubepur-Bela-Bidhuna; but under the directions of the Transport Commissioner, the Regional Transport Authority made an endorsement on the renewed permit authorizing the appellant to ply his vehicles between Kanpur and Chaubepur for a period of four months commencing from July 23, 1960. As regards the proposed scheme of nationalisation, on June 22, 1960 the appellant filed his objections thereto. The said objections were heard by the Joint Secretary, Judicial Department, who approved the scheme with some modifications. The approved scheme was published in the Gazette on October 8,1960. Under the notification the scheme was to be put into operation from October 15, 1960 or thereafter. On November 12, 1960, a notification dated November 4, 1960 was published in the Gazette under S. 68F of the Motor Vehicles Act cancelling the appellant s renewed permit with effect from November 27, 1960, Under the nationalization scheme the stage carriages belonging to the State Transport Undertaking could ply on the said route without obtaining permits. The appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad praying for the following reliefs:
(a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may issue to command the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner s right to ply on Kanpur-Bela-Bidhuna via Chaubpur route under the permit duly renewed in his favour till the entire duration of the permit viz., till July 22, 1963.
(b) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may issue to quash so much of the Resolution dated July 19, 1960 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur as directs imposition of illegal conditions to the renewed permit of the petitioner
(c) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may issue to command respondents Nos. 2 and 3 not to give effect to the illegal endorsements made on the petitioner s permit on July 23,1960 and to treat the petitioner s permit as having been renewed without the illegal conditions attached thereto by the two endorsements dated July 23, 1960, reproduced in paragraph 15 of the affidavit.
(d) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may issue to quash the notifications dated May 18, 1960 under section 68C of the Act, so also the subsequent notifications under section 68D (2) of the Act dated September 26,1960 and the notification dated November 4, 1960 under section 68F (2) of the Act in regard to Kanpur-Bela-Bidhuna route.
(e) That a writ in the nature of m
