Back
Rajasthan High Court
Modi & Tyagi, JJ.
Jagjit Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 69 of 1962
Decided On : August 31, 1966
Before Chapter IV-A was incorporated in the Act and a consequent amendment was made in sec. 43 for issuing directions regarding the grant of permits for alternative routes to the displaced operators as a measure to sec. 68-G of the Act, there could not be any dispute that the function of the Regional Transport Authority in granting the permit was quasi-judicial but it is difficult to say now that the grant of permit by the Regional Transport Authority in each and every case is a quasi-judicial function. The position has considerably changed since a new Chapter IV-A and a consequent amendment in sec. 43 was introduced. The permits now granted in pursuance of a scheme approved under Chapter IV-A is purely consequential and therefore it is an administrative act of the Regional Transport Authority and therefore it cannot be said that the permits given by the Regional Transport Authority as a result of the acceptance of a scheme under Chapter IV-A is given in the discharge of its quasi-judicial functions. The argument is that if new route has got to be opened by the Regional Transport Authority where no existing operator is plying his bus, procedure under Chapter IV may not be followed by the Regional Transport Authority and the permits may be granted to the displaced operators under the instructions issued by the State Government under sec. 43(l)(iii) of the Act, but if already certain operators are plying their buses on a particular route and if the displaced operators are to be introduced on that route in order to rehabilitate them, then in that event the entire procedure as provided from sec. 46 to 57 shall have to be gone through and no permits can be issued without going into the formalities under the instruction issued by the State Government which are purely of administrative nature. This argument is based on the principles of natural justice under the apprehension that if the Regional Transport Authority is permitted to issue permits to the dislodged operators under the directions issued by the State Government under sec. 43(l)(iii) of the Act without following the procedure laid down for the issue of fresh permits in Chapter IV then the existing operators on that route shall be deprived of their right to have their say in the matter of granting of permits to the displaced operators. However this apprehension has no substance in it as sec 43(1) itself provides a chance of raising objections to the interests affected which term undoubtedly covers the existing operators before the directions are finally issued by the Government. The proviso to sec. 43 clearly contains a procedure for giving opportunity to the interested persons to raise objections or to give suggestions which the State Government is bound to consider in consultation with the State Transport Authority and while doing so the representatives of the interests affected shall have an opportunity of being heard before the Government. This shows that the instructions under sec. 43(l)(iii) are issued by the Government after giving opportunity to the persons affected of being heard before the State Government and after consulting the State Transport Authority who in the natural course of circumstances is conversant with the conditions prevailing on the routes affected by such instructions. In these circumstances if the directions are issued by the State Government under the provisions of sec 43(1)(iii) and transmitted to Regional Transport Authority under sec. 44 of the Act, the only task that is left for the Regional Transport Authority is to issue the permit to the displaced operator or operators on the route notified in the direction itself. (Paras 23, 55, 27 and 28)
2. The case of the petitioners is that about 31 bus operators, who were plying their buses on the Jaipur-Alwar route, were displaced on account of the nationalisation of the said route. In order to rehabilitate them, the Government of Rajasthan, purporting to act under the provisions of sec. 43(l)(iii) of the Act, published in the Rajasthan Gazette a draft notification No. F.1(4)31 /H(B-Gr.I)/61 dated the 25th October, 1961 for inviting objections or suggestions in respect of the proposal for issuing direction for the grant of the permits to the 32 displaced operators of the Jaipur-Alwar route on the proposed route of Jaipur-Bikaner via Sikar which is 235 miles long and overlaps the Jaipur-Sikar route for which the petitioners held their permits. It is alleged that the petitioners submitted their objections to the Government against the proposal contained in the draft notification. A notice dated 4th December, 1961 was, however, published in the Rajasthan Gazette, Part IV-C dated the 4th December, 1961, authorising Shri Shiv Shanker, Home Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan to hear objections against the proposals contained in the draft notification referred to above in consultation with the State Transport Authority on the 15th December, 1961 in the office of the Judicial Secretary in the Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur, at 11.00 a.m. The grievance of the petitioners is that this Gazette was not despatched to its subscribers before the 15th December, 1961, when the objections were to be heard by the Home Secretary, nor was any notice issued to the petitioners individually. The petitioners further submitted that they had absolutely no knowledge of the notice dated the 4th December, 1961 and consequently they could not appear before Shri Shiv Shanker, Home Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan for passing their objections. On the 16th December, 1961 petitioner Harjit Singh somehow came to know that the Home Secretary would hear objections and decide the same on some other date as the meeting of the State Transport Authority could not be held on the 15th December, 1961. It is alleged that on the 13th January, 1962, the State Transport Authority met and petitioner Harjit Singh along with some other petitioners (whose names have not been given in the petition) went to attend this meeting and they tried to seek an adjournment, but the State Transport Authority refused to accept the petition for adjournment which the petitioner Harjit Singh subsequently submitted to the Secretary, State Transport Authority in its office and a telegram (Ex. 13-C) was also despatched the same day to the State Transport Authority to postpone the finalisation of the directions under sec. 43 of the Act on Jaipur-Bikaner route unless he was heard in the matter. The further grievance of the petitioners is that the State Government without giving any opportunity to them of being heard by the Home Secretary in consultation with the State Transport Authority, finalised the instructions to be issued by it to the State Transport Authority under sec. 43(1)(iii) of the Act and the notification was published in the Rajasthan Gazette, Extra-ordinary dated the 24th January, 1962. It is this notification that has been challenged by the petitioners, mainly, on the ground that the instructions were issued ex parte in clear violation of the principles of natural justice inas
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
