Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and R. J. Bhave, J.
BALURAM DALURAM - Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 107 Of 1966
Decided On : 09/15/1966
(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - S. 68-D - Nationalisation scheme - Restriction not resulting in great loss imposed on some permit-holders - No restrictions imposed on certain others who would suffer great loss if such restrictions were to be imposed - no discrimination - Permit-holders not similarly placed - Constitution of India - Art. 14. [Para 8]
(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - S. 68-D (3) – Scope – Finality attached only to schemes properly framed and approved - No finality in cases where scheme is not passed by proper authority, or passed without giving any opportunity to objectors, or there being any defect in the procedure in approving the scheme. [Para 5]
(4) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - S. 68-D (1) - Proviso (Inserted by M.P. Amending Act No.2 of 1963) - S. 68-D (2), 68-1 and Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Service (Development). Rules, 1959 - R. 6 - Proviso to S. 68-D (1) not ultra vires of the amended R. 6 - Rule giving only 7 days notice before date of hearing not inconsistent with S. 68-D (2). [Para 7]
(5) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Ss. 68-D, 68-C & 68-1 - Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Service (Development) Rules - R. 3 - Scope of Government's power to approve or modify a scheme.
The Government can approve or modify only the scheme framed by the State Transport Undertaking in terms of section 68-C. The Government cannot approve something not mentioned in the scheme on the hypothesis that by implication it shall be deemed to have been included in the scheme. It is so notwithstanding the fact that the Government can totally reject a scheme. [Para 11]
Section 68-C enables the State Transport Undertaking to prepare a scheme to run or operate road transport services on the proposed route or area to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise. The expression "Otherwise" is wide enough to include the proposal of the undertaking to operate the services on a route to the exclusion of some of the holders of the permits and not all. In order to obviate the event of schemes being struck down as discriminatory under Art, 14 of the Constitution, the State Transport Undertaking must necessarily state in the scheme the permits proposed to be cancelled while nationalising the particular route. If some permits are mentioned, while others are omitted, it may mean that the others are not excluded. [Para 11]
Hence, the action of the Government in issuing notices to permit-holders not included in the scheme as framed and notified was held bad. A clause in the scheme to the effect that similar or other permits on the route sought to be nationalised are deemed to be cancelled was held to contrary to the mandatory provision of R. 3.
( 1 ) THIS Order will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petition No. 108 of 1966.
( 2 ) THE question raised by these two petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution is as to the-validity of two Schemes described as Scheme No. 53 and scheme No. 49 published by the State Government under Section 68d (3; of the motor Vehicles Act. 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
( 3 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred by Section 68c of the Act the Madhya pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation)published in the Gazette, dated 12th February 1965. Scheme No. 53 for the running and operation by the Corporation of road transport services on the routes specified in the Scheme. On the same date, another Notification under Section 68c containing proposals propounding another Scheme, namely, Scheme No. 49, was published by the Corporation for the running and operation by the Corporation of services on the routes specified in that Scheme. These notifications invited persons affected by the Schemes to file their objections, if any, before the respondent No. 2, Special Secretary to Government in the Home department, inaccordance with rule 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Stale Road transport Services (Development) Rules. 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the rules ). The petitioners filed objections under Section 68d of the Act which were heard and decided by the Special Secretary, he being the person appointed by the government to hear and dispose of the objections. On 31st December 1965. The special Sercretary passed an order under Section 68d (2) rejecting the petitioners objections to Scheme No. 53 and approving the Scheme with some modifications. He directed that the Scheme would come into force from 7th March 1966 thereafter, on 14th January 1966, Scheme No. 53, as approved and modified under Sub-section (2) of Section 68d, was published in the Gazette as required by sub-section (3) of Section 68d. The order approving with some modifications scheme No, 49 making it effective from 15th March 1966 was passed by the special Secretary on 31st December 1965. ft was published in the Gazette, dated 7th January 1966, as required by Section 68d (3 ). During the course of hearing of the objections in Scheme No. 53, the Special secretary issued notices to 15 permit-holders whose permits were not mentioned in the Scheme published by the Corporation under Section 68c but who were likely to be affected by the Scheme. Out of the 15 permit-holders, 11 operators filed objections and appeared through their counsel. The petitioners Nos. 13 and 17 to 22 are permit-holders of this category. They objected to their being joined in the proceedings and urged that the Special Secretary had no jurisdiction to issue notices to them. That objection was overruled and the Scheme was approved and published as already stated. The approved Scheme affects the permits held by the petitioners Nos. 13 and 17 to 24. (Petitioners Nos. 23 and 24 were ex parte before the Special Secretary.)
( 4 ) THE petitioners, who operate transport services wholly or partly on the routes covered by the two Schemes, question the validity of the Schemes and pray that by issue of a writ of certiorari the two Schemes as published under Section 68d (3) as also the orders, dated 31st December 1905, passed by the Special secretary, be quashed and the respondents be restrained from giving effect to the schemes.
( 5 ) BEFORE we deal with the eases on merits, we would like to dispose of a preliminary objection raised by Shri Chitale, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, M. P. State Road Transport Corporation, regarding tenability of miscellaneous Petition No. 107 of 1966, in which Scheme No. 53 is under challenge,. The objection is based on the following facts. The Scheme No. 53 came into operation with effect from 7th March 1966. The petition came up for preliminary bearing before this Court on 14th March 1966 when the rule nisi was issued b
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
