Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. Bhargava and B. D. Gupta, JJ.
BARIAT ULLAH KHAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. - Respondents
Special Appeal 918 Of 1962
Decided On : 04/25/1963
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - Section 68-C, 68-D - Rule 7 - Validity - Hearing of objections - Personal grounds - Consideration - Scheme - Public interest - Judicial review.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a stage carriage permit holder, challenged the nationalization of his route under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. He contended that the hearing of objections under Section 68-D was not conducted by the State Government, that Rule 7 framed by the State Government was invalid, and that the scheme was not in the public interest.
Finding of the Court:
1. Rule 7, framed by the State Government under Section 68-1 of the Act, was validly made and empowered the Judicial Secretary or a Joint Secretary nominated by him to hear objections under Section 68-D. 2. The hearing of objections by the Joint Secretary, Judicial Department, was a valid exercise of the State Government's power under Section 68-D. 3. The scheme was not vitiated by the fact that it did not nationalize all routes but only selected ones, as Section 68-C allowed for nationalization of particular routes or portions thereof. 4. The Joint Secretary, Judicial Department, had considered the objections raised by the appellant, including those relating to the condition of the road and the partial nationalization of the route, and had provided reasoned responses to them. 5. The Joint Secretary's approach to the question of his function under Section 68-D was correct, as he was not required to scrutinize the opinion formed by the State Transport Undertaking at the stage of publishing the scheme under Section 68-C.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 7, framed by the State Government under Section 68-1 of the Act, was validly made and empowered the Judicial Secretary or a Joint Secretary nominated by him to hear objections under Section 68-D. 2. Whether the hearing of objections by the Joint Secretary, Judicial Department, was a valid exercise of the State Government's power under Section 68-D. 3. Whether the scheme was vitiated by the fact that it did not nationalize all routes but only selected ones. 4. Whether the Joint Secretary, Judicial Department, had considered the objections raised by the appellant and provided reasoned responses to them. 5. Whether the Joint Secretary's approach to the question of his function under Section 68-D was correct.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power conferred on the State Government to hear objections under Section 68-D of the Act could be exercised through the Judicial Secretary or an officer of his department, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary, as per Rule 7 framed under Section 68-1 of the Act. 2. The hearing of objections and its decision by the Joint Secretary, Judicial Department, did not result in non-compliance with the requirements of Section 68-D. 3. Section 68-C of the Act contemplates nationalization of road transport services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof, and the scheme in question fell within this ambit. 4. The Joint Secretary, Judicial Department, had considered the objections raised by the appellant, including those relating to the condition of the road and the partial nationalization of the route, and had provided reasoned responses to them. 5. The Joint Secretary's approach to the question of his function under Section 68-D was correct, as he was not required to scrutinize the opinion formed by the State Transport Undertaking at the stage of publishing the scheme under Section 68-C.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the validity of the scheme and the hearing of objections under Section 68-D of the Act.
( 2 ) SRI Section C. Khare, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, urged before us as his first point the submission, which was made before the learned single Judge also, that the hearing of the objection under Section 68-D of the Act by Sri Rule Chandra, Joint Secretary to the State government in the Judicial Department did not amount to hearing by the State Government and consequently did not satisfy the requirements of Section 68-D of the Act. Sri Section C. Khare could not, however, indicate who should have been the person who should have given a hearing to the appellant on the objection under Section 68-D. of the Act because that provision of law only mentions the State Government which is not a human being, and the Government must necessarily Act through human beings. On the other hand, on behalf of the State reliance was placed on Rule 7 framed by the State Government on this subject which was notified by notification No. SRT SDR--AM 1-757-TM/xxx-4492-T-55 published la Part I-A of the U. P. Gazette dated 7th March, 1959. This rule lays down: "the objections received shall be considered by the Judicial Secretary to Government U. P. , or an officer of his department, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary, nominated by the former for the purpose. " the rule also lays down the procedure to be adopted by the Officer requiring him to give an opportunity of being heard to the objectors or their representatives and also the representatives of the transport undertaking. It also lays down that, after hearing such parties as appear, the officer shall give a decision whether the scheme should be approved or modified, as he may deem proper. The authority conferred on the State Government to hear objections under Section 68-D of the Act has thus, under this rule, required to be exercised through the Judicial Secretary or an officer of his department nominated by him being of a rank not below that of a Joint Secretary. Admittedly Sri Rule Chandra was Joint Secretary in the Judicial Department and having been nominated to hear the ob
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
