1. Challenge to a transport nationalisation scheme under Section 68D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, regarding the exclusion of stage-carriage permit holders. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 434
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
14th December, 1962
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
M/s. Nehru Motor Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. and others, Petitioners
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 142 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
M/s. B. Chhangani and B. D. Sharma, Advocates, for Petitioners; Mr. C.K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, (M/s. Kan Singh, S.K. Kapoor and P. D. Menon, Advocates with him), for the Respondents.
Advocates:
B.CHHANGANI, B.D.SHARMA, C.K.DAFTARY, KAN SINGH, P.D.MENON, S.K.KAPOOR
B.CHHANGANI, B.D.SHARMA, C.K.DAFTARY, KAN SINGH, P.D.MENON, S.K.KAPOOR
A decision made by an authority after a court sets aside a final scheme is a fresh decision, not a review. In quasi-judicial proceedings, coercive processes for witnesses are not mandatory, and different treatment of completely versus partially overlapping routes in transport nationalisation does not constitute discrimination.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 68C and 68D(3) - State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules - Rule 3 - Nationalisation of transport routes - Approval of draft scheme - Validity of approval after modification following High Court directions - Whether exclusion of partially overlapping routes not mentioned in draft scheme amounts to partial approval or discrimination - Whether a fresh hearing ab initio is required after a remand-like order - Whether absence of coercive process for witnesses vitiates a quasi-judicial hearing. (Paras 6-11)
(B) Administrative Law - Quasi-judicial proceedings - Nature of hearing - In proceedings of this kind, it is sufficient if the authority takes evidence of witnesses produced by the objectors and issues summonses; the absence of coercive processes for witnesses does not render the hearing improper or insufficient. (Para 10)
(C) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Discrimination - No discrimination in excluding permit-holders of routes completely covered by a nationalised route while leaving partially overlapping routes untouched, as the two classes of permit-holders stand on different footings. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
A draft scheme was published for the take-over of transport services on a specific route, specifying three completely overlapping routes for cancellation. An appointed officer initially attempted to include twelve partially overlapping routes not mentioned in the draft scheme. The High Court set aside the final scheme due to unauthorized modifications by the State Government and the inclusion of non-notified routes. Upon reconsideration and following the High Court's directions, the officer approved a modified scheme excluding the partially overlapping routes. This second approval was challenged on grounds of partial approval, illegal review, lack of fresh hearing, and discrimination.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since the partially overlapping routes were never part of the draft scheme, their exclusion did not constitute partial approval. The reconsideration after the High Court's order was a fresh decision, not a review. The evidence from the first hearing remained valid, making a fresh hearing ab initio unnecessary. The lack of coercive processes for witnesses is acceptable in quasi-judicial proceedings. There was no discrimination as completely and partially overlapping routes are distinct categories.
Issues: (1) Whether the approval of a scheme excluding routes not mentioned in the draft scheme constitutes "partial approval"; (2) Whether the reconsideration of a decision after a High Court order setting aside the final scheme amounts to an illegal review; (3) Whether a fresh hearing ab initio and coercive processes for witnesses are mandatory in such proceedings; (4) Whether excluding partially overlapping routes while affecting completely overlapping routes is discriminatory.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an approval is of the scheme as a whole if it adheres to the routes specified in the draft scheme. A decision made after a High Court sets aside a final scheme is a fresh decision (analogous to a remand) and not a review. In quasi-judicial hearings, the ability to summon witnesses is sufficient, and coercive processes are not mandatory. Furthermore, a distinction exists between routes completely covered and those partially covered by a nationalised route, justifying different treatment without amounting to discrimination.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Legality of partial scheme approval, validity of order review, requirement for fresh hearings ab initio, adequacy of hearings without coercive processes, and claims of discrimination. (Para 5 )
3. Reconsideration after judicial setting-aside is a fresh decision; quasi-judicial hearings do not require coercive witness processes; previously recorded evidence remains valid upon remand. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 )
4. Differential treatment of completely versus partially overlapping routes is permissible under Section 68C; quasi-judicial authorities may rely on existing evidence after a legal remand. (Para 9 , 11 )
5. Petition dismissed. (Para 12 )
6. Does a quasi-judicial officer's reconsideration of a scheme after it is set aside by a court constitute an illegal review?
No. When a court sets aside a final scheme, the underlying decision of the approving officer also ends. Reappraising evidence in light of the court's legal guidance is a fresh decision, analogous to a remand, rather than a review of the original order. (Para 8 )
7. Is a fresh hearing ab initio with new evidence required when a scheme is set aside on technical or legal grounds?
No. If the setting-aside was based on legal defects rather than evidentiary issues, the authority may rely on previously recorded evidence and hear arguments without requiring a full de novo trial, provided the objectors had a full opportunity to lead evidence previously. (Para 9 )
8. Is the absence of coercive processes to compel witness attendance fatal to the validity of a quasi-judicial hearing?
No. Quasi-judicial proceedings are not identical to court proceedings. Issuing summonses is sufficient; the inability to compel attendance through coercive processes does not necessarily render the hearing improper or insufficient under the applicable rules. (Para 10 )
9. Does excluding only completely overlapping routes from a nationalisation scheme while leaving partially overlapping routes untouched constitute illegal discrimination?
No. Under Section 68C, the government may exclude routes partially or completely. Completely overlapping routes are legally distinct from partially overlapping ones, and this distinction justifies differential treatment in a nationalisation scheme. (Para 11 )
Judgment
WANCHOO, J. : This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenges the constitutionality of a scheme finalised under S. 68D (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, No. IV of 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioners are holders of stage-carriage permits on Jodhpur-Bilara and Bilara-Beawar routes. A draft scheme was published under S. 68C of the Act by the Rajasthan Roadways, which is a State Transport Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as the Roadways), on January 26, 1961. It provided for taking over of the Transport service on the Jodhpur-Bilara-Beawar-Ajmer route by the Roadways. Further it provided for taking over three overlapping routes or portions thereof which were entirely on Jodhpur-Bilara-Beawar-Ajmer road, namely, Jodhpur-Bilara, Bilara-Beawar, and Beawar-Ajmer as required by R.3 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the names of the permit-holders on these three overlapping routes with their permits were also specified [or cancellation, and no transport vehicles other than the vehicles of the roadways were to ply on the route to be taken over. The usual time was also given for filing objections to all those whose interests were affected by the draft scheme. The petitioners filed objections under S. 68D of the Act, which were heard by the Legal Remembrancer to the Government of Rajasthan, he being the person appointed to hear and decide the objections. The objectors wanted to lead evidence and did produce some witness but some witnesses to whom summonses were issued did not turn up and the objectors wanted the issue of coercive processes against them. The Legal Remembrancer however refused this on the ground that he had no power to issue coercive process. As the objectors did not produce any further witnesses, the arguments were heard and the Legal Remembrancer gave his decisions on May 31, 1962.
2. One of the main points then raised before the Legal Remembrancer was that there were a dozen other overlapping routes which were not touched by the scheme, and therefore the scheme was bad on the ground of discrimination. It may be mentioned that these overlapping routes were not completely overlapping the route to be nationalised though the vehicles plying on those twelve routes had to pass over part of the Jodhpur-Bilara-Beawar-Ajmer road. It was urged on behalf of the Roadways before the Legal Remembrancer that the intention was to render ineffective the permits on these twelve routes also insofar as they overlapped the route to be taken over, though these routes were not mentioned in the draft-scheme like the three routes which were completely covered by the Jodhpur-Bilara-Ajmer route and no notice was apparently given to the seventy-two permit-holders on these twelve partially overlapping routes. The Legal Remembrancer held that even though these routes were not specified in the draft scheme and no notice had been given to the permit-holders thereof, it was open to him to render the permits ineffective with respect to these routes also and proceeded to pass orders accordingly.
3. Thereupon five writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Rajasthan by the permit-holders on the three routes which had been notified in the draft scheme as well as by some of the permit-holders of the twelve partially overlapping routes which had not been notified but which had been affected by the order of Legal Remembrancer. Two main point were urged before the High Court in support of the challenge to the validity of the scheme as finally published on June 16, 1962. In the first place, it was urged that the State Government when publishing the scheme as required by S. 68 D(3) of the Act had made certain changes in it beyond the decision of the Legal Remembrancer and therefore the final scheme as published was invalid as it was not open to the State Government to make any changes in the scheme as approved by t
