Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and K. L. Pandey, J.
PREMCHAND JAIN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 116 Of 1965
Decided On : 08/27/1965
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 68D(2) - APPROVAL OR MODIFICATION OF SCHEMES - HEARING OF OBJECTIONS - NECESSITY - JURISDICTION OF SPECIAL SECRETARY - SCOPE OF ENQUIRY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, existing operators of passenger transport services, challenged the approval and modification of certain schemes prepared under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and the subsequent actions taken to give effect to those schemes. The schemes were approved and modified by the Special Secretary to the State Government, who was authorized to do so by the Chief Minister. The petitioners contended that the Special Secretary did not have the jurisdiction to approve or modify the schemes, that they were not given an opportunity of being heard before the schemes were approved, and that the schemes were not in accordance with the order approving them.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Special Secretary had the jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the objections to the schemes, but he did not have the power to approve or modify them. The Court further held that the petitioners were entitled to a hearing before the schemes were approved, and that the Special Secretary did not give them a proper hearing. The Court also held that the schemes were not in accordance with the order approving them.
Issues: 1. Whether the Special Secretary had the jurisdiction to approve or modify the schemes? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a hearing before the schemes were approved? 3. Whether the Special Secretary gave the petitioners a proper hearing? 4. Whether the schemes were in accordance with the order approving them?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Special Secretary had the jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the objections to the schemes, but he did not have the power to approve or modify them. This was because the power to approve or modify the schemes was vested in the State Government, and the Special Secretary was not authorized to exercise that power. 2. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to a hearing before the schemes were approved. This was because Section 68D(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, required the State Government to give the objectors an opportunity of being heard before approving or modifying a scheme. 3. The Court held that the Special Secretary did not give the petitioners a proper hearing. This was because the Special Secretary did not consider and decide the objections afresh, and his mind was foreclosed by the conclusions on which he had founded his earlier orders with regard to the scheme and which were quashed by the Court. 4. The Court held that the schemes were not in accordance with the order approving them. This was because the Special Secretary did not give genuine consideration to the objections to the schemes, and the order approving the schemes was therefore invalid.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitions and quashed the order approving the schemes, the publication of the schemes in the State Gazette, and the subsequent action taken in pursuance thereof under Section 68F. The Court also remitted the cases to the Special Secretary for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
( 1 ) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is mainly directed against-
(i) an order dated 2nd February 1965 whereby R. S. Shukla, Special secretary to the State Government in the Home Department, approved under Section 68d (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act), Schemes Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 with certain modifications, all these Schemes having been prepared and published earlier under section 68c of the Act; (ii) the subsequent publication of Scheme No. 2 in the Official Gazette dated 12th February 1965 as required by Section 68d (3) of the Act; and (iii) a notice dated 26th February 1965 Issued under Section 68f (2) of the Act by which certain permits held by the petitioner for some routes covered by Scheme No. 2 were cancelled.
( 2 ) IN Miscellaneous Petition No. 126 of 1965, some other existing operators have claimed similar reliefs in regard to the same Scheme No. 2. For like reliefs, similar miscellaneous Petitions, Nos. 129 and 159 of 1965 in regard to Scheme No. 4, No. 171 of 1965 in regard to Scheme No. 5, Nos. 157, 165, 169, 170 and 243 of 1965 in regard to Scheme No. 7 and Nos. 137, 149, 158 and 168 of 1965 in regard to scheme No. 9 have also been filed by some existing operators affected by those schemes.
( 3 ) THE petitioner in this case has, in Addition, called in question Scheme No. 2 as initially published under Section 68c of the Act and also challenged the vires of the explanation inserted under Section 68d (1) of the Act and the validity of Rule 6 of the Rules framed under Section 681 of the Act. The aforesaid Explanation and Rule 6 and the Schemes Nos. 5, 7 and 9 as published under Section 68c of the Act have been assailed in Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 165, 168, 169, 170, 171 and 243 of 1965 also.
( 4 ) THIS order shall dispose of all the above-mentioned fourteen petitions.
( 5 ) ALL these petitions are a sequel to our order dated 23rd December 1964 in premchand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1965 MPLJ 434 : (AIR 1965 Madh Pra 196 ). By that order, we disposed of thirty-two Miscellaneous Petitions, including the one filed by the petitioner in this case. The facts leading to those petitions are set out in paragraphs 2 to 6 of our earlier order and need not be re-stated in detail. We may, however, state that, by those petitions, some existing operators called in question, broadly speaking, the various steps which had been taken under the machinery provisions of Chapter IVA of the Act and the rules made thereunder for approving certain Schemes prepared for enabling the State transport Undertaking to provide passenger transport services on certain routes to the complete or partial exclusion of all other persons. By our order dated 23rd december 1964, we quashed the orders modifying Schemes Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9, the approved Schemes as published in the Official Gazette and the orders passed and notices issued under Section 68f (2) of the Act. In so doing, we proceeded on only one ground. We held that, although, R. S. Shukla, Special Secretary, had been authorised to dispose of the objections received in respect of those Schemes, he had not been authorised to approve or modify them. ( 6 ) IN order to correct the errors and omissions noticed in the earlier order, the state Government amended Supplementary Instruction No. 2 issued under Rule 13 of the Rules of Business and Rule 7 of the Government Business (Allocation)Rules which had been made under Article 166 of the Constitution. Further, under the amended Supplementary Instruction No. 2, the Chief Minister expressly authorised the Special Secretary to exercise the powers of the State Government under Section 68d of the Act to approve or modify the Schemes and also to take all further steps towards that end.
( 7 ) SUPPLEMENTARY Instruction No. 2, as amended on 1st January 1965, reads as follows :
"subject to the Rules of Business, any particular item of business allocated to a department may be dispos
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
