Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI, J.
Rajendra Kumar Sahoo & Ors.- Petitioners
Versus
State of Odisha and Anr. – Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 17342 of 2024
Decided On : 31-10-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial review of statutory compliance. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. substantive arguments on procedural compliance. (Para 3) |
| 3. assessment of procedural fairness and compliance. (Para 4 , 12) |
| 4. mandatory statutory procedures for public participation. (Para 7 , 9 , 11) |
| 5. meaningful participation and the significance of procedural technicalities. (Para 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 6. constitutional principle fewer than prejudice and judicial restraint. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
Judgment :
Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioners seek a direction from this Court to quash the impugned Notification dated 28.11.2023 proposing a Supplementary Reciprocal Transport Agreement with Chhattisgarh, and to mandate its republication in strict compliance with Section 88 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act after affording a fair and reasonable hearing to all existing operators.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The petitioners are stage-carriage operators with permanent permits issued by the State Transport Authority (STA), Odisha, operating interstate services on Odisha–Chhattisgarh routes.
(ii) The Government of Odisha issued a draft proposal for a Supplementary Reciprocal Transport Agreement with Chhattisgarh, dated 20.11.2023 and published in the Odisha Gazette on 28.11.2023 under Section 88 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, inviting objections within 30 days.
(iii) A publication relating to the proposal appeared in the Odia daily The Samaj on 24.11.2023 directing the public to view details on the official website and submit objections online; the Gazette notice stated that representations be filed within 30 days to the Transport Commissioner, Odisha, at Rajaswa Bhawan, Cuttack.
(iv) The petitioners filed written objections on 22.12.2023 and later sought a personal hearing by representation dated 01.07.2024.
(v) Notices for hearing were issued: on 02.07.2024 to at least one other objector; on 18.07.2024 to the petitioners to appear before the Transport Commissioner.
(vi) During the writ proceedings, the Court recorded that the 18.07.2024 notice afforded inadequate time; a fresh notice dated 27.09.2024 fixed the hearing on 18.10.2024.
(vii) The petitioners appeared on 18.10.2024 before the Chairman, State Transport Authority, and their objections were taken up for consideration.
(viii) According to Opposite Party No. 2, the requirements of Section 88 (5) regarding publication have been complied with and the draft proposal has not yet been finalized; it remains under consideration after receipt of objections.
(ix) The writ petition challenges the 28.11.2023 notification on alleged non- compliance with Section 88 (5), including publication and hearing aspects, and seeks appropriate directions.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The petitioners contend that Section 88 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 mandates a dual publication: (i) in the Official Gazette, and (ii) in one or more regional language newspapers, along with clear notification of the authority, time, and place for consideration of objections. Failure to comply renders the notification void ab initio.
(ii) The petitioners argue that despite filing objections within the prescribed time and reiterating their request for hearing, they were denied audience while other objectors were called, amounting to discrimination, procedural impropriety, and violation of natural justice.
(iii) Even assuming publication in The Samaj (Oriya daily), it did not specify the required particulars (date, place, authority, and time), thereby defeating the substantive legislative intent of enabling effective participation of affected parties.
(iv) The routes identified as “new” under the 2023 proposal, such as Puri-Bhilai, Puri-Raipur, Bhubaneswar-Raipur, and Puri-Durg, were already part of the 2008 reciprocal agreement and currently operational. Th
Non-compliance with procedural requirements in statutory notifications does not automatically invalidate the process when substantial rights have been safeguarded and due opportunity provided to the ....
Compliance with statutory provisions and unreasonable delay in challenging administrative actions.
The State Government must provide adequate consideration and reasons for rejecting objections when modifying transport service schemes, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of reciprocal agreements between states for granting inter-State route permits, and the need for publication of any ch....
The inclusion of a route in an inter-State agreement is invalid if it violates the Area Approved Scheme and principles of natural justice.
The relevant date for considering applications is the date of consideration, not the date of application. The Court emphasized the need for a liberal approach in condoning delay to ensure substantial....
Absence of any reference to a plan in the Notification and infact non-availability of any plan linked to the notification, fortifies argument that the description of the land under acquisition in the....
The court reaffirmed that if a route is legally declared a notified route, state transport services maintain exclusive rights to operate, precluding permits for private operators.
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
