Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and G. P. Singh, J.
RAIPUR TRANSPORT CO.PVT.LTD., RAIPUR AND ANR. - Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 45 Of 1967
Decided On : 05/04/1968
The validity of Schemes Nos. 13, 14, 19, 23, 26, 33, 42, 60 and 61, published by the State Government under Section 68-D (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter called the Act), was challenged. The petitioners were private transport operators whose services were affected by the Schemes. The Schemes were formulated by the respondent-Corporation, constituted under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service. The petitioners contended that the Schemes were invalid on various grounds, including the following: (i) that the Special Secretary to Government, who had been delegated the power to approve or modify the Schemes, had no jurisdiction to do so; (ii) that the Schemes were not the Schemes of the Corporation but were formulated at the behest of the Chief Minister of the State; (iii) that the Special Secretary was biased and prejudiced against the petitioners; and (iv) that the Schemes were vitiated by various other defects. The Supreme Court held: (i) that the Special Secretary had jurisdiction to approve or modify the Schemes; (ii) that the Schemes were the Schemes of the Corporation and were not formulated at the behest of the Chief Minister; (iii) that the Special Secretary was not biased or prejudiced against the petitioners; and (iv) that the Schemes were not vitiated by any other defects. The Court, therefore, dismissed all the petitions except Misc. Petition No. 112 of 1966, which was allowed to the extent that the direction contained in Scheme No. 60 with regard to cancellation of contract carriage permits was quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were private transport operators whose services were affected by the Schemes. The Schemes were formulated by the respondent-Corporation, constituted under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held: (i) that the Special Secretary had jurisdiction to approve or modify the Schemes; (ii) that the Schemes were the Schemes of the Corporation and were not formulated at the behest of the Chief Minister; (iii) that the Special Secretary was not biased or prejudiced against the petitioners; and (iv) that the Schemes were not vitiated by any other defects.
Issues: (i) Whether the Special Secretary had jurisdiction to approve or modify the Schemes? (ii) Whether the Schemes were the Schemes of the Corporation or were formulated at the behest of the Chief Minister? (iii) Whether the Special Secretary was biased or prejudiced against the petitioners? (iv) Whether the Schemes were vitiated by any other defects?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that: (i) the Special Secretary had jurisdiction to approve or modify the Schemes; (ii) the Schemes were the Schemes of the Corporation and were not formulated at the behest of the Chief Minister; (iii) the Special Secretary was not biased or prejudiced against the petitioners; and (iv) the Schemes were not vitiated by any other defects.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed all the petitions except Misc. Petition No. 112 of 1966, which was allowed to the extent that the direction contained in Scheme No. 60 with regard to cancellation of contract carriage permits was quashed.
( 1 ) THIS order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 112, 131, 151, 152, 153, 229, 249, 295, 367, 368, 374, 512 and 537, all of 1966 and Misc. Petition No. 45 of 1967.
( 2 ) IN all these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the validity of Schemes, described as Schemes Nos. 13, 14, 19, 23, 26, 33, 42, 60 and 61, published by the State Government under Section 68-D (3) of the Motor Vehicles act, 1939, (hereinafter called the Act), has been challenged. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 68-C of the Act, the Madhya Pra-desh State Road transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), constituted under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, published proposals in various issues of the Gazette propounding the aforestated Schemes for the running and operation by the Corporation of road transport services on the routes specified in the Schemes. The notifications publishing the Schemes invited the persons affected by the Schemes to file objections, if any, before the respondent No. 2, special Secretary to Government'in the Home Department, in accordance with rule 4 of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Services (Development)Rules, 1959, (hereinafter called the Rules), The petitioners filed objections under section 68-D of the Act, which were heard by the Special Secretary, he being the person appointed by the Government to approve or modify the Schemes after considering the objections thereto. After considering the objections, the Special Secretary passed an order under section 68-D (2) in relation to each Scheme rejecting the objections to the scheme, approving it with some modifications, and fixing a date for the coming into force of each Scheme. Thereafter, the various Schemes, as approved and modified under Sub-section (2) of Section 68-D, were published in the Gazette as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act.
( 3 ) THE petitioners, who run transport services wholly or partly on the routes covered by the Schemes, question the validity of the Schemes and pray that by the issue of writs of certiorari, the Schemes, as published under Section 68-D (3), as also the orders of the Special Secretary approving the Schemes, with some modifications be quashed, and the respondents be restrained from giving effect to the Schemes.
( 4 ) THE petitioners have taken several grounds attacking the validity of the schemes. Some of the grounds are common to all the petitions. Many of the grounds of challenge are similar to those raised in Premchand Jain v. State of M. P. AIR 1965 Madh Pra 196, Premchand Jain v. State of M. P. AIR 1966 Madh Pra 117 and Capital Multi Purpose Co-operative Society v. State of M. P. , M. P. No. 351/65 D/- 15-9-1966 (MP ). These points are concluded by the decisions just referred to, and by the decision of the Supreme Court in C. M. P. Co-Operative societies v. State of M. P. , AIR 1967 SC 1815, affirming the decision of this Court in M. P. No. 351 of 1965 D/- 15-9-1966 (MP ). The concluded contentions are :--1. That the Special Secretary had no jurisdiction to hear the objections or to approve or modify the Schemes for the reasons - (a) that the power conferred in that behalf on the State government under Section 68-D (2) and (3) of the Act could not be delegated; (b) that if the power could be delegated at all, it could be only under Section 68-D (2-a) and not under the Rules of Business; (c) that even the delegation under the Rules of Business was bad as on the dates on which the Special Secretary issued to the petitioners notices to file their objections, he was only invested with the power of disposing of the objections and not with the power of "approving or modifying the Schemes"; (d) that the power of approving or modifying the Schemes which was given to the Special Secretary subsequently on 12th january 1965 should have been given simultaneously along with the power of disposal with which he was invested on 1
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
