1967 Supreme(Raj) 84

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : D.S.Dave,V.P.Tyagi
GREEN BUS (RAJASTHAN) PRIVATE LTD. - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Civil Writ Petns 539 Of 1965
Decided On : 04/28/1967

A successor of a State Road Transport Undertaking is not empowered under the Rules of 1960 to propose a scheme under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and pursue the scheme before the Legal Remembrancer or Joint Legal Remembrancer after the State Road Transport Undertaking becomes defunct.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - Section 68-D - Scheme for nationalisation of road transport service - Approval by Joint Legal Remembrancer - Validity - Rajasthan State Roadways became defunct - Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation constituted - Whether Corporation could pursue the scheme - Whether Corporation was a successor of the Rajasthan State Roadways - Whether Corporation was a State Transport Undertaking - Rules of 1960 framed under Section 68-I of the Act - Whether Rules automatically lost their force after Rajasthan State Roadways became defunct - Whether Corporation could proceed directly under Section 68-C of the Act - Held, Corporation was not a State Transport Undertaking as defined in the Rules of 1960 - Corporation could not pursue the scheme - Scheme approved by Joint Legal Remembrancer was illegal.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, existing operators on the Udaipur-Ahmedabad route, challenged the scheme for nationalising the route, which was published by the Rajasthan Roadways. Objections were filed by the petitioners with the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan in the Transport Department. The Legal Remembrancer to the Government of Rajasthan, who was appointed to dispose of the objections, gave hearing to the objectors and inspected the route. Thereafter, the State Government issued a notification constituting the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation with effect from 1-10-1964 for the purpose of creating the State Transport Undertaking to provide transport services on the route or routes proposed to be nationalised under Chapter IV-A of the Act. The Rajasthan Roadways became defunct from 1-10-1964. The State Government issued another notification purporting to have been issued under Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, issued administrative instructions whereby it was directed that the Corporation would take over the management of the existing Roadways Department of the Government of Rajasthan. The objectors then raised a plea that the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation was not a State Transport Undertaking as defined in the Rules of 1960 and, therefore, it could not propose, prepare, continue or implement any scheme for nationalisation of the Road Transport in Rajasthan. The State Government issued another notification appointing the Joint Legal Remembrancer to consider the objections for the purposes of approving or modifying the impugned scheme. The Joint Legal Remembrancer approved the scheme on 11-6-1965, which was ordered to come into force from 15-8-1965.

Finding of the Court:

1. The order appointing the Joint Legal Remembrancer was perfectly within the competence of the Governor and the proceedings taken by the Joint Legal Remembrancer to dispose of the objections of the petitioners and accepting the scheme cannot be taken to be ultra vires of his powers. 2. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 was a different legal entity from the Rajasthan State Roadways and as such it could not step into the shoes of the Rajasthan State Roadways and proceed to pursue the scheme which was framed by the Rajasthan State Roadways for nationalising the route in question, and undertake to provide Road Transport service on the nationalised route. 3. The Corporation, though statutory has a personality of its own and this personality is distinct from that of the State or other share holders. It cannot be said that a shareholder owns the property with which the Corporation is concerned. 4. The Corporation, in our opinion, succeeded the Rajasthan State Roadways. But the question is whether a successor of the former State Road Transport Undertaking is empowered under the Rules of 1960 to propose a scheme under Chapter IVA of the Act and as a successor of the Rajasthan State roadways could it pick up the thread to pursue the scheme before the Legal Remembrancer or Joint Legal Remembrancer after 1-10-1964 from the stage it was left by the Rajasthan State Roadways when it became defunct. 5. The Corporation, in our opinion, could not be permitted to function as State Transport undertaking under the rules without their amendment. In this view of the matter we feel that the proceedings taken by the Legal Remembrancer and the Joint Legal remembrancer after the Rajasthan State Roadways became defunct in allowing the Corporation as a party to those proceedings, were in contravention of the rules and, therefore they were illegal and the scheme thus approved is, therefore vitiated.

Issues: 1. Whether the appointment of the Joint Legal Remembrancer was valid? 2. Whether the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation could pursue the scheme framed by the Rajasthan State Roadways? 3. Whether the Corporation was a successor of the Rajasthan State Roadways? 4. Whether the Corporation was a State Transport Undertaking as defined in the Rules of 1960? 5. Whether the Rules of 1960 automatically lost their force after Rajasthan State Roadways became defunct? 6. Whether the Corporation could proceed directly under Section 68-C of the Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order appointing the Joint Legal Remembrancer was perfectly within the competence of the Governor and the proceedings taken by the Joint Legal Remembrancer to dispose of the objections of the petitioners and accepting the scheme cannot be taken to be ultra vires of his powers. 2. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 was a different legal entity from the Rajasthan State Roadways and as such it could not step into the shoes of the Rajasthan State Roadways and proceed to pursue the scheme which was framed by the Rajasthan State Roadways for nationalising the route in question, and undertake to provide Road Transport service on the nationalised route. 3. The Corporation, though statutory has a personality of its own and this personality is distinct from that of the State or other share holders. It cannot be said that a shareholder owns the property with which the Corporation is concerned. 4. The Corporation, in our opinion, succeeded the Rajasthan State Roadways. But the question is whether a successor of the former State Road Transport Undertaking is empowered under the Rules of 1960 to propose a scheme under Chapter IVA of the Act and as a successor of the Rajasthan State roadways could it pick up the thread to pursue the scheme before the Legal Remembrancer or Joint Legal Remembrancer after 1-10-1964 from the stage it was left by the Rajasthan State Roadways when it became defunct. 5. The Corporation, in our opinion, could not be permitted to function as State Transport undertaking under the rules without their amendment. In this view of the matter we feel that the proceedings taken by the Legal Remembrancer and the Joint Legal remembrancer after the Rajasthan State Roadways became defunct in allowing the Corporation as a party to those proceedings, were in contravention of the rules and, therefore they were illegal and the scheme thus approved is, therefore vitiated.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed and the scheme approved by the Joint Legal Remembrancer was quashed.