Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Kan Singh,C.M.Lodha
TEJ RAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Civil Writ 591 Of 1968
Decided On : 09/24/1968
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - Sec. 68-C, 68-D - RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT SERVICES (DEVELOPMENT) RULES, 1965 - Rule 3, 4, 6 - Scheme of nationalisation of raisinghnagar-Rawatsar route - Validity - Appointment of Joint Legal Remembrancer as authority for approving scheme and hearing objections - Validity - Draft scheme - Whether ultra vires - Opportunity of hearing to objectors - Whether sufficient - Mala fide decision - Whether inoperative in law.
Fact of the Case:
A group of 51 writ petitions were filed challenging the validity of a scheme of nationalisation relating to raisinghnagar-Rawatsar route which runs via Padampur-Ganganagar-Hanumangarh junction and Hanumangarh Town. The petitioners sought appropriate writ direction or order against the respondents. The writ petitions raised identical questions of fact and law, and were disposed of together.
Finding of the Court:
1. The appointment of Joint Legal Remembrancer as an authority for approving the scheme and hearing the objections in relation thereto was valid and inoperative. 2. The draft scheme was not ultra vires as the Corporation applied its mind to the nationalisation of the route in question. 3. The Joint Legal Remembrancer gave sufficient opportunity of hearing to the objectors before approving the scheme and in doing so he complied with the statutory requirements. The decision of the Joint Legal Remembrancer was not mala fide and consequently inoperative in law.
Issues: 1. Whether the appointment of Joint Legal Remembrancer as authority for approving the scheme and hearing objections was valid? 2. Whether the draft scheme was ultra vires? 3. Whether the Joint Legal Remembrancer gave sufficient opportunity of hearing to the objectors before approving the scheme?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The duty imposed on the State Government under Section 68-D of the Act was a quasi judicial function and for discharging that duty properly the State Government has to conform to the norms of judicial procedure. Therefore, it was necessary, according to the court, that the authority who has to decide the question about the approval of the scheme should not be such as would be directly or indirectly interested in the result of the case. 2. The concept of a quasi-judicial act has been taken to imply that the act is not wholly judicial and it prescribes only a duty cast on the executive body or authority to conform to norms of judicial procedure in performing some acts in exercise of its executive powers. 3. The rules made by the Governor themselves provide that this function has to be discharged by an officer appointed in accordance with the business rules of the Slate Government. Therefore, there was no question of delegation of any function to the Joint Legal Remembrancer. 4. The Joint Legal Remembrancer who heard the objections was acting in his official capacity. The post of a Joint Legal remembrancer is borne on the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and he is a district Judge. In these circumstances the court was not at all impressed by the argument that this function could not have been entrusted to an officer of the state Government belonging to the Higher Judicial Service or that an officer would suffer from bias because he is a limb of the Government. 5. The Government may have formulated a policy and the General Manager of the erstwhile State Roadways, which was a department of the State, may have framed the scheme, but the fact that the scheme framed by the General Manager of the Corporation was different from the previous scheme shows that he formulated a scheme independently which he was legally entitled to do. He was not inhibited from formulating his own scheme by what the General Manager of the erstwhile State Roadways may have done or even by the General statements of policy made by the Government from time titime. 6. The hearing contemplated under Section 68-D or Rule 6 of the Rr. for that matter as observed above, was quasi judicial in nature and the concept of a quasi-judicial act implies that the act is not wholly judicial and it prescribes only duty cast on the execu-tive body or authority to conform to norms of judicial procedure in performing its duty and further the mode of conduct of its business was to be in accordance with the procedural rules for the conduct of Government business. 7. Though the duty has to be discharged judicially, the procedure has to depend on the nature of the tribunal and the procedure of every tribunal need not be the same. 8. Personal or oral hearing is not the sine qua non of the principles of natural justice. 9. The authority cannot compel attendance of witnesses and, therefore, at the most it could issue letters to witnesses merely requesting them to appear before it and it would be open to those persons to appear or not to appear before the authority. 10. The Joint Legal Remembrancer had given sufficient opportunity to the objectors to substantiate their objections and the objectors did not produce any evidence in support of the objections, nor were they present to give their own statement in support of the objections and had otherwise not pursued the matter properly before the Joint legal Remembrancer.
Final Decision: All the writ petitions were dismissed.
KAN SINGH J.
( 1 ) WE have before us a group of 51 writ petitions in which the several writ petitioners challenge the validity of a scheme of nationalisation relating to raisinghnagar-Rawatsar route which runs via Padampur-Ganganagar-Hanumangarh junction and Hanumangarh Town. The petitioners seek appropriate writ direction or order against the respondents. As the writ petitions raise identical questions of fact and law, they can conveniently be disposed of together. We may give the relevant facts with reference to Tej Rams writ petition.
( 2 ) BY a notification dated 9-12-65 the General Manager of the Rajasthan State road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, hereinafter to be referred as the "corporation," which is the State undertaking, published a notification under section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter to be referred as the "act" read with Rules 3 and 4 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules. 1965, hereinafter to be referred as the "rules," inviting objections to be filed before the Secretary to the Government in the Transport department within 30 days of the publication of the scheme in the Gazette In accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules. On 24-1-66 petitioner Tej Ram filed objections before the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan in the Transport department. A copy of the objections has been placed on record as Annexure-2 and we will have occasion to refer to it a little later. On 28-4-66 the Joint Legal remembrancer to the Government, who was appointed under the Rules to hear the objec-tions, issued a notification in the Gazette intimating all the objectors that the objections would be heard by him on 15-6-66 at 11-00 A. M. in his chamber in the Rajas- than Secretariat and the objectors would also be permitted to lead evidence oral or documentary during the aforesaid hearing. It was further mentioned in the notification that in case the objectors desired to lead evidence and produce witnesses they should indicate ine type of evidence supported by affidavit, as to what evidence each witness was expected to give in respect of the scheme. Further the objectors were to intimate the names and addresses of such witnesses to the Joint Legal Remembrancer on or before the date of hearing. The objectors could appear in person or through a duly authurised agent and produce evidence oral and documentary on the aforesaid date. On 15-6-66 when the objections came up for hearing before the Joint Legal remembrancer, Shri L. L. Sharma, counsel for the objectors, moved an application (Annexure-4 on record) praying that the Rajaslhan Stale Road Transport corporation be directed to file a reply to the objections. After hearing the parties the Joint Legal Remembrancer ordered that the Corporation cannot be compelled to file any reply to the objections as the case was already posted for the objectors evidence and in the cir-cumslances it was not thought necessary to obtain any reply of the Corporation to these objections. The case was then posted for 7-7-66. On that date, however, the case was adjourned to 20-7-66. On 20-7-66 Shri L. L. Sharma, counsel for the objectors, moved another application questioning the jurisdiction of the Joint Legal Remembrancer to hear the objections. It was urged that in accordance with Section 68-D of the Act the Stale Government, that is the governor, alone could hear the objections and this function could not be assigned to officers subordinate to him in exercise of his powers under Article 166 of the constitution. It was further urged that the Joint Legal Remembrancer had not been authorised by the State Government under Rule 6 of the Rules to hear the objections. On this application the Joint Legal Remembrancer ordered that as a similar question had been raised in a writ petition pending before this Court, he would defer his decision on the application till the judgment of the High Court in the pending writ petition. Nothing material happened on some da
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
