SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
17th September, 1962
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S.J. IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Sobhraj Odharmal and others, Appellants
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 471 of 1962 and Writ Petn. No. 66 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalavad, Attorney General for India, (M/s. R. K. Garg., D. P. Singh,, S. C. Agarwala and M. K Ramamurthi, Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co., with him), for Appellants and Petitioner; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, (M/s. S. K. Kapur, K. K. Jain and P. D. Menon, Advocates, with him), for Respondents (In the Appeal and the Petition).
Civil Misc. Writ No. 214 of 1962, D/-9-5-1962 Raj.
Judgment
SHAH, J. : Questions relating to the validity of a scheme approved by the State of Rajasthan under S. 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act 4 of 1939 and its effect are raised by the appeal and the writ petition. In the appeal the validity of the scheme is challenged on the plea that the appellants were denied reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of their objections before the scheme was approved. In the writ petition it is submitted that the fundamental right of the petitioner to carry on business of a motor transport operator is infringed by the State of Rajasthan plying its buses along the route covered by the scheme without obtaining permits under S. 42 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. A scheme for operating a motor transport service on the Jaipur-Tonk-Deoli Kotah route was published on September 10, 1960 in the Rajasthan Government Gazette, by the Rajasthan State Roadways which is a State Transport Undertaking within the meaning of S. 68A (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Sixtyone persons, including certain holders of state carriage permits authorising them to ply state carriages on the route, lodged objections to the scheme with the Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Transport Department Jaipur within the period prescribed. The objections were heard by the Legal Remembrancer of the State and were rejected by order dated February 2, 1961. The scheme was then approved by the State Government and was published under S. 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 8 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Service (Development) Rules, 1960. Some holders of state carriage permits applied under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of the High Court of Rajasthan for the issue of writs cancelling the scheme. The High Court by order dated May 3, 1961 allowed the petition and set aside the scheme. The operative part of the order, in so far as it is material, was as follows :
"The approval of Scheme B Jaipur-kotah by the Legal Remembrancer is quashed and he is directed to decide the objections of the permit holders of Jaipur-Chaksu-Niwai-Banasthali-Tonk-Deoli route in accordance with the observations made above. The Notification of the State Government publishing the scheme is also set aside".
3. Thereafter the Legal Remembrancer sent individual notices by registered post pre-paid and addressed to all the sixty-one objectors fixing June 26, 1961 for hearing objections, and also published in the State Government Gazette a general notice to that effect. Out of sixty-one notices dispatched, thirteen were duly received by the addressees and thirty-nine were returned unserved : about the remaining nine notices no intimation was received from the Postal Department till June 19, 1961. The legal Remembrancer commenced hearing the objections. The proceeding lasted from June, 1961 to March, 1962. There were fifteen hearings, at which evidence was recorded and oral arguments were heard. The Legal Remembrancer by his order dated March 23, 1962 approved the scheme subject to certain modification. The scheme as approved was then published on April 2, 1962 in the Government Gazette. On May 3/4, 1962 the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, issued an order declaring that the State Road Transport Service shall commence to operate from May 15, 1962 on the route specified in the scheme as mentioned in Rule 2 and directed that fifty-five permits described in the order to stand cancelled. Pursuant to the scheme the State Transport Undertaking commenced operating its vehicles upon the route without obtaining permits under S. 42(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Subsequently, applications were submitted to the Regional Transport Authority for permits and the same were granted to the State Transport Undertaking on July 28, 1962.
4. In the meantime, sixteen persons-who will be hereinafter referred to collectively as appellants- claiming that they had not received notice of the proceedings before, the Legal Remembrancer after the scheme was
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.