ORDER :- The State Transport Undertaking in exercise of powers under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) published a scheme in the U. P. Gazette dated June 25, 1960, in respect of the Aligarh-Tappal route. Objections were filed against the proposal. These objections remained pending and subsequently a representation was submitted to the Minister of Transport, U. P. on 29-1-1971.

It is said that a delegation of operators of the route contacted the Minister concerned personally in respect of this representation and subsequent thereto, reminders were also sent. The Minister concerned, seems to have passed an order on the 24th March, 1971 for denotification of the route. The Minister of Transport also sent a letter on the 25th March, 1971 to one Chandra Pal Singh who is Vice-President of the Union of Operators, intimating to him that he had decided that the route should be denotified, and that he would be informed in due course about this decision, by the Transport Department The State Government had appointed the Legal Remembrancer. Shri B. C. Saxena, Joint Legal Remembrancer has the authority to decide objections in respect of this route. The matter was taken up by him, and the operators raised the objections that inasmuch as the scheme had been directed to be denotified, the proceedings should be dropped. The Officer, however, did not accept this contention. He came to the conclusion that the decision taken by the then Transport Minister was only a tentative one, and, further that inasmuch as the order was not expressed in the name of the Governor, it did not have binding force. Taking the order as only advisory in nature, he rejected the objections of the petitioners, and fixed a date for disposal of the objections. The petitioners challenge this order as also pray for an order restraining the officer concerned from proceeding further in the matter.

2. Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the State Transport Undertaking is a Department of the Government, and the Transport Minister being the head of that Department was fully competent to pass an order for denotifying the route, and it was not necessary that the order should be expressed in the name of the Governor for it to become effective. It is also urged that the order of the Minister concerned was an order under Section 68-D (2), and being an order quasi-judicial in nature, the same could not be rescinded by any subsequent decision of the State Govt., for there was no power of review. Counsel for the State has urged that in reply the scheme is notified in the Official Gazette as required by Sec. 68-C, and assuming that the State Transport Undertaking could withdraw the scheme, it could be done only in a like manner i.e., by another notification, and a mere order of the Transport Minister was not sufficient to effect a denotification of the route. It is also urged that the Transport Minister could not pass the impugned order on behalf of the State Transport Undertaking, inasmuch as under the statute he was not the head of that Undertaking. It is also urged that the order in question was not passed by the State Government under Section 68-D (2) inasmuch as the Transport Minister was not a person authorised to dispose of the objections, and that being so the question of reviewing the order does not arise.

3. The scheme is prepared by the State Transport Undertaking under Section 68-C of the Act. After the scheme is prepared, the scheme along with the necessary particulars is published in the official gazette. Section 68-D provides for objections being filed by persons affected by the scheme, and empowers the State Government, after giving an opportunity to the objectors, to approve or modify it. The scheme as approved or modified is then published in the official gazette and the same on its publication becomes final. The State Transport Undertaking, thereafter still has the power to cancel or modify the scheme as approved by the Sta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document