IMPORTANT POINTS
1.Under Section 21 of General Clauses Act, an authority which has the power to issue a notification has the undoubted power to rescind or modify the notification in the like manner.
2.Non-compliance with the provisions of either of clauses of Article 166 would lead to the result that order in question would lose the protection which it would otherwise enjoy had the proper mode for expression and authentication been adopted.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 102(1) -Writ petitions filed by various operators questioning Notification dated April 15, 2000 issued by the State of U.P. rescinding the earlier Notification dated April 16, 1999 - Division Bench of Court by a common judgment dismissed all the writ petitions-Appeals thereagainst-Case of appellants that it was not open to the State Government to withdraw the Notification dated April 16, 1999 after it had been approved by the Hearing Authority by his order dated October 11, 1999 which was the order of State Government under Section 102(1) and (2) of the 1988 Act-Held Saharanpur-Delhi route on its nationalization stood frozen under the 1959 Scheme against everyone except 50 operators-The draft scheme published on February 13, 1986 was confined to those 50 operators alone and not to other private operators- By the 1993 Scheme, Saharanpur-Delhi route stood frozen against 50 operators as well- The effect of these two schemes (1959 Scheme and 1993 Scheme), thus, had been that entire Saharanpur-Delhi route became fully nationalized for the exclusive operation by the STU i.e.,UPSRTC and no private operator could operate on the said Route- In view of settled legal position that RTA cannot either renew the permit of such private operators or give any fresh permit in respect of a route which overlaps the notified route, appellants’ permits stood cancelled - In this backdrop, the whole exercise undertaken by State Government under sub-section (1) of Section 102 of 1988 Act proposing to modify 1993 Scheme relating to Saharanpur - Delhi notified route was misconceived as the permits specified in that Notification did not exist in law- The finding of High Court in circumstances that the modification proposal dated April 16,1999 proceeded on the misconception that petitioners (appellants herein) were holding permits on the concerned route could not be said to be unjustified-Since the Notification dated April 16, 1999 was, ex facie, misconceived and meaningless as regards Saharanpur-Delhi route, proceedings taken pursuant thereto by the Hearing Authority and his decision dated October 11, 1999 also have no legal effect-Hence held that Notification dated April 15, 2000 was valid and did not suffer from any legal flaw – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 33, 44)
       General Clauses Act, 1897- Section 21- Under Section 21 of General Clauses Act, an authority which has the power to issue a notification has the undoubted power to rescind or modify the notification in the like manner- In the instant case,Notification dated April 15, 2000 had been made in the same manner as the earlier Notification dated April 16, 1999-Since the order of the Hearing Authority dated October 11, 1999 was not an order of approval under Section 102(1) of the 1988 Act and could not be treated as such, power of the State Government to rescind the Notification dated April 16, 1999 did not get exhausted- The argument that draft Notification dated April 16, 1999 merged in the order dated October 11, 1999 held to be fallacious and devoid of any substance-Except the decision of the Hearing Authority dated October 11, 1999 nothing on record to conclude that State Government had approved the proposed modification as notified on April 16, 1999- Nothing on record even to indicate that the order dated October 11, 1999 of the Hearing Authority was communicated to the appellants or any of affected parties-Hence held that order dated October 11, 1999 was not an order as contemplated under Section 102 (1) of 1988 Act by State Government approving the modification proposed in Notification dated April 16, 1999. (Paras 40, 41)
       Facts of the Case :
       Writ petitions were filed by various operators herein in the instant case questioning Notification dated April 15, 2000 issued by the State of U.P. rescinding the earlier Notification dated April 16, 1999 . Division Bench of Court by a common judgment dismissed all the writ petitions.
       2.Present Appeals have been filed against said order of High Court. Case of appellants that it was not open to the State Government to withdraw the Notification dated April 16, 1999 after it had been approved by the Hearing Authority by his order dated October 11, 1999 which was the order of State Government under Section 102(1) and (2) of the 1988 Act.
       Findings of the Court :
       The Court Held that Saharanpur-Delhi route on its nationalization stood frozen under the 1959 Scheme against everyone except 50 operators.The draft scheme published on February 13, 1986 was confined to those 50 operators alone and not to other private operators. By the 1993 Scheme, Saharanpur-Delhi route stood frozen against 50 operators as well. The effect of these two schemes (1959 Scheme and 1993 Scheme), thus, had been that entire Saharanpur-Delhi route became fully nationalized for the exclusive operation by the STU i.e.,UPSRTC and no private operator could operate on the said Route. In view of settled legal position that RTA cannot either renew the permit of such private operators or give any fresh permit in respect of a route which overlaps the notified route, appellants’ permits stood cancelled . In this backdrop, the whole exercise undertaken by State Government under sub-section (1) of Section 102 of 1988 Act proposing to modify 1993 Scheme relating to Saharanpur - Delhi notified route was misconceived as the permits specified in that Notification did not exist in law. The finding of High Court in circumstances that the modification proposal dated April 16,1999 proceeded on the misconception that petitioners (appellants herein) were holding permits on the concerned route could not be said to be unjustified.Since the Notification dated April 16, 1999 was, ex facie, misconceived and meaningless as regards Saharanpur-Delhi route, proceedings taken pursuant thereto by the Hearing Authority and his decision dated October 11, 1999 also had no legal effect.
       Under Section 21 of General Clauses Act, an authority which has the power to issue a notification has the undoubted power to rescind or modify the notification in the like manner. In the instant case,Notification dated April 15, 2000 had been made in the same manner as the earlier Notification dated April 16, 1999.Since the order of the Hearing Authority dated October 11, 1999 was not an order of approval under Section 102(1) of the 1988 Act and could not be treated as such, power of the State Government to rescind the Notification dated April 16, 1999 did not get exhausted. The argument that draft Notification dated April 16, 1999 merged in the order dated October 11, 1999 held to be fallacious and devoid of any substance. Except the decision of the Hearing Authority dated October 11, 1999 nothing on record to conclude that State Government had approved the proposed modification as notified on April 16, 1999. Nothing on record even to indicate that the order dated October 11, 1999 of the Hearing Authority was communicated to the appellants or any of affected parties.Hence held that order dated October 11, 1999 was not an order as contemplated under Section 102 (1) of 1988 Act by State Government approving the modification proposed in Notification dated April 16, 1999.Hence held that Notification dated April 15, 2000 was valid and did not suffer from any legal flaw . Appeals were dismissed.
       Result : Appeals dismissed.

JUDGEMENT

R.M. Lodha, J. —

Delay condoned and leave granted in SLP(C) No.820 of 2003. Leave also granted in SLP (C) No. 21707 of 2002. The applicants in the I.As. for impleadment are allowed to intervene. Introduction

2.Five writ petitions by various operators came to be filed before High Court of Judicature at Allahabad questioning the Notification dated April 15, 2000 issued by the State of U.P. rescinding the earlier Notification dated April 16, 1999 and for consequential reliefs. The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court heard these writ petitions together and by a common judgment dated April 23, 2002 dismissed all the writ petitions. It is from this common judgment that these three appeals by special leave arise.

Facts

3.The brief facts in relation to these appeals may be set out first.

A. Appeal by Rasid Javed and others

4.The appellants in this appeal claim that they have been operators on Saharanpur-Karnal route (inter-State route) via Jandhera - Rampur - Gangoh - New Yamuna Bridge. In the Notification published on April 16, 1999 under Section 102(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the 1988 Act’), the State Government proposed to modify the scheme notified on May 29, 1993 by providing that permit holders bearing Nos. 168/94, 169/94. 170/94, 171/94, 172/94, 173/94, 222/94, 233/94, 23/95, 24/95, 25/95, 739/89, 242/94, 764/90, 787/90, 772/90, 800/90 and 784/90 shall be allowed to operate their buses along with the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) on Saharanpur-Karnal route (via Jandhera-Rampur-Gangoh-New Yamuna Bridge) provided that they get their permits counter-signed by State of Haryana for plying their buses in that State. By the said Notification, objections were invited from the UPSRTC and the persons likely to be affected by the proposed modification and ShriZamirruddin, Special Secretary and Additional Legal Remembrancer, Uttar Pradesh was appointed Hearing Authority to hear and decide the objections that may be received. Pursuant to the said Notification, objections were received and the Hearing Authority after hearing the affected parties held in its Order dated October 11, 1999 that proposed modification be approved, i.e. private operators be allowed to ply their vehicles. According to the appellants, they are covered by the permits mentioned at Sl. No. 1 [column 4 - (c)(iii)] of the Schedule to the Notification dated April 16, 1999.

B. Appeal by Masood Ahmad and others

5.The appellants in this appeal claim to be permit holders in respect of Saharanpur-Loni route via Shamli- Baghpat-Marginal Bandh Road - ISBT Delhi. According to them, they are covered by Sl. No.1 [column 4 - (c)(i)] of the Schedule to the Notification dated April 16, 1999. By the said Notification, the approved scheme dated May 29, 1993 was sought to be modified and it was proposed to allow these operators to operate their buses along with the UPSRTC on Saharanpur-Loni via Shamli-Baraut-Baghpat-Marginal Bandh Road - ISBT Delhi route.

C. Appeal by Raghunandan Goyal and Others

6.The appellants claim to have been granted inter- State permits by the State Transport Authority (STA), Uttar Pradesh for an inter-State route known as Meerut-Chandigarh via Baraut-Shamli-Gangoh-Saharanpur-Sarsawa-Yamuna Nagar-Ambala. Their case is that in the draft modification published in the Notification dated April 16, 1999, their permits are mentioned at Sl. No. 1 [column 4 - (c)(ii)] of the Schedule thereof. By the said modification, it was proposed to allow these operators to operate their buses along with the UPSRTC on Meerut-Chandigarh via Baraut-Shamli-Gangoh-Saharanpur- Sarsawa-Yamuna Nagar-Ambala route provided that the permit holders get their permits counter-signed by the State Government of Haryana for plying their buses in that State. Saharanpur-Delhi route (the 1959 Scheme) and previous litigation

7.On February 26, 1959, a draft scheme was published under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (‘the 1939 Act’ for short) in r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 500

Cases Referred (16)