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

1980 Supreme(SC) 467

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., P.N. BHAGWATI, V.R. KRISHNA IYER, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A.D. KOSHAL, JJ.
Smt. Saraswati Devi and others, Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents. 661
Civil Appeal No.1755 of 1980,
D/- 4-11-1980.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. N. Kackar, Sr. Advocate (M/s. R. B. Mehrotra and Pramod Swarup, Advocates with him), for Appellants; 662 Mr. O. P. Rana, Sr. Advocate (Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, Advocate with him) (for No.1) and Mr.Yogeshwar Prasad, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Mr. P. K.Pillai and R. N. Trivedi, Advocates (for No. 2), for Respondents.

Advocates:
O.P.RANA, P.K.PALLI, PRAMOD SVARUP, R.B.MAHATO, R.N.TRIVEDI, RANI CHHABRA, S.N.KACKAR, Shabha Dikshit, YOGESHAR PRASAD

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 19(6) - Motor Vehicles Act 1939 - Section 68C, 68D, 68A to 68E - Uttar Pradesh State Transport Services Rules, 1958 - Rule 4 (1) - Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 - Section 3 - Road Transport Service - Filing an Objection - Notification declared that State Government was of opinion that "for purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service, it is necessary in public interest that road transport services on routes mentioned at Item of annexed schemes should be run and operated by State transport undertaking to complete exclusion of other persons" and impugned scheme was being published - Impugned scheme envisaged plying of buses on route Gorakhpur-Khajni Gola via Dhuriapur and Malhanpur exclusively by State Transport Undertaking and invited all persons whose interest was affected by it to file objections thereto within 30 days of its publication in Official Gazette – Held, A person filing an objection and desiring to be heard shall also submit along with memorandum of objections, a list of documents and witnesses with their names and addresses and a brief summary of nature and type of evidence which each such witness is likely to give - No compliance with this rule was made by appellants when two applications just above considered were filed - Sub-rule serves a salutary purpose and, that is, that inquiring authority may shut out all evidence which is sought to be brought on record but which is either irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible - Two applications, therefore, suffered from a serious flaw by reason of which alone they merited dismissal unless summary insisted upon by sub-rule (5) was supplied before they were disposed of - In result appeal must fail in spite of fact that Court have accepted one main contention raised by Mr. Kacker, namely, that objections involving comparison of pre-existing services with those proposed in a scheme are relatable to ingredients of Section 68C and are, therefore, admissible under Section 68D of Act - Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

KOSHAL, J.:- This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment dated the 8th August, 1980 of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing a petition instituted by the 18 appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the reliefs prayed for were-

(a) that the order dated the 19th July, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) passed by the Deputy Secretary (Judicial), Government of Uttar Pradesh, rejecting all the objections filed by the appellants to a scheme (hereinafter called the impugned scheme) published on the 21st January, 1961 in the Government Gazette of Uttar Pradesh under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (for brevity, the Act) be set aside as illegal, and

(b) that the notification published in the said Gazette dated the 7th November, 1970 and approving the impugned scheme (for short, the 1970 notification) be quashed.

2. The notification dated the 21st January, 1961 declared that the State Government was of the opinion that "for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services on the routes mentioned at Item No. 2 of the annexed schemes should be run and operated by the State transport undertaking to the complete exclusion of other persons" and the impugned scheme was being published on that account under Section 68C of the Act read with Rule 4 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh State Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1958 (for short, the Rules). The impugned scheme envisaged the plying of buses on the route Gorakhpur-Khajni Gola via Dhuriapur and Malhanpur exclusively by the State Transport Undertaking (hereinafter described as the S.T.U.) and invited all persons whose interest was affected by it to file objections thereto within 30 days of its publication in the Official Gazette.

The impugned scheme was later on modified by different notifications and three allied routes were brought within its purview. Supplementary objections to the scheme as amended were put forward by persons interested.

Shri S. K. Bhargava, Deputy Secretary (Judicial) to the U. P. Government rejected all the objections and approved the scheme through the impugned order, in pursuance of which the 1970 notification was published in the Government Gazette.

3. On behalf of the 18 appellants (out of whom appellants Nos. 1 to 17 are transport operators who were plying their buses on the routes covered by the impugned scheme while appellant No. 18 is the Motor Operators Association, Gorakhpur) the following grounds were put forward before the High Court in support of the prayers made :

(i) The impugned scheme was vitiated by mala fides inasmuch as it was the outcome of action taken by Shri Hanumant Singh Negi, Deputy Transport Commissioner, U. P., who had threatened Shri Bajrangi Lal, Pairokar for one of the petitioners, namely, Shri Kashi Prasad Gupta, that the disputed route would be nationalised in case the latter pursued in the SC the matter which had earlier been decided against him by the High Court.

(ii) The impugned order did not deal at all with objections of a personal nature which had been filed by the appellants and which, inter alia, indicated that the scheme would operate to the great disadvantage of the appellants all of whom were plying buses on the disputed route and had invested huge sums of money for that purpose.

(iii) The impugned order did not record specific findings on any of the objections of a "personal nature" and was liable to be quashed for that reason alone.

(iv) It was incumbent on the author of the impugned order to compare the services rendered by the appellants with those to be rendered by the S.T.U. That not having been done, the impugned order and the 1970 notification were both vitiated.

4. The High Court went at length into the question of mala fides and rejected the contention of the appellants in that behalf mainly on the ground




























































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