TMI Blog1966 (8) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the nationalisation of the said route. In order to rehabilitate them, the Government of Rajasthan, purporting to act under the provisions of Section 43(1) (iii) of the Act, published in the Rajasthan Gazette a draft notification No. F. 1 (4) 31/H (B-Gr. I)/ 61 dated the 25th October. 1961 for inviting objections or suggestions in respect of the proposal for issuing direction for the grant of the permits to the 32 displaced operators of the Jaipur-Alwar route on the proposed route of Jaipur-Bikaner via Sikar which is 235 miles long and overlaps the Jaipur-Sikar route for which the petitioners held their permits. It is alleged that the petitioners submitted their objections to the Government against the proposal contained in the draft notification. A notice dated 4th December, 1961 was, however, published in the Rajasthan Gazette. Part IV-C dated the 4th December. 1961, authorising Shri Shiv Shanker, Home Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan to hear objections against the proposals contained in the draft notification referred to above in consultation with the State Transport Authority on the 15th December. 1961 in the office of the Judicial Secretary in the Rajasthan Secretari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ections for the issue of permits in favour of certain individuals in clear violation of the provisions contained in Sections 47 and 57 of the Act relating to the grant of permits. It is, therefore, prayed by the petitioners that the notification issued by the State Government on the 24th January, 1962 giving directions to the State Transport Authority under Section 43(1) (iii) of the Act for issuing permits on Jaipur-Bikaner route to the respondents Nos. 4 to 33 be quashed and the permits granted to the aforementioned respondents in consequence of these instructions on the said route he set aside. 3. The petition has been contested by the State Government and by some of the recipients of the permits on the Jaipur-Bikaner route. Two separate replies to the writ petition have been filed, one by the State Government and the other by the contesting displaced respondents who got the permits on the Jaipur-Bikaner route. 4. The State Government has denied this fact that the petitioners had no knowledge of the notice issued by the State Government on the 4th December, 1961, appointing Shri Shiv Shanker, Home Secretary as an authority to hear the objections filed by the objectors in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in which they were vitally interested. It is also urged that as Shri D.C. Sharma, who was the Chairman of the State Transport Authority, was out of station on 15-12-61 and therefore the meeting of the State Transport Authority could not be held on that day, but the Home Secretary thought it fit to hear the objections on that day and that he did in his own room in the Secretariat after notifying the change of venue for hearing the objections and consulted the State Transport Authority in its meeting held on the 13th January, 1962, where the Home Secretary was also personally present. The recommendation of the Home Secretary, as approved by the State Transport Authority, was finally adopted by the Government and the same was published in he Official Gazette dated the 24th January, 1962. In the amended reply, the State Government took a stand that the requirements of the law in this connection is that the State Transport Authority should be consulted before finally deciding the objections and it is not necessary that the State Transport Authority should also hear the objections of the objectors along with Home Secretary who was appointed to hear the objections. The recommendations of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions of the Act is a continuation of the old permits previously granted to the displaced respondents and, therefore, if the old permits are declared illegal by this Court then the new permits, which have been renewed on the basis of the old permits would automatically go away. In support of this view, he has placed reliance on a Supreme Court authority in V. C. K. Bus Service Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore. AIR 1957 SC 489. In that case the Supreme Court has held: A reading of the relevant provisions of the Act and of the rules leads indubitably to the conclusion that a renewal is a continuation of the permit previously granted. The fact that the grant of renewal is not a matter of cause, or that it is open to the authorities to impose fresh conditions at the time of renewal does not, when the permit is in fact renewed, alter its character as a renewal. . . In the view that we have taken that under the provisions of the Act and the rules, a renewal is a continuation of the original permit, there can be no doubt as to what the rights of the appellant are. When the proprietor of V.C.K. Bus Service was granted a per mil by the Regional Transport Author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Shri Shiv Shanker, Home Secretary as an authority to hear objections under Section 43 of the Act was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on the 4th December, 1961, but it is admitted by the State Government that this Gazette was not despatched to the subscribers upto the 15th December, 1961, though the copy of the same was sent to the Secretariat on the 12th December, 1961. In such circumstances, it is urged by Mr. Agrawal that the printing of a notice in the Official Gazette, if it was not out of the press, cannot be deemed to be a good notice to the public at large. We find a considerable force in this argument of Mr. Agrawal, but this fact alone shall not dispose of the objection raised by Mr. Agrawal before us. It is admitted by the petitioners themselves that individual notices were issued from the Secretariat under a registered cover to each individual objector on the 6th December, 1961 and out of 58 objectors, with the exception of 10 petitioners, every other objector was served with a notice as published in the Gazette of the 4th December, 1961. The envelopes containing the notices to the petitioners were, however, returned by the postman on the 12th December. 1961, with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsultation with the State Transport Authority been considered after giving the representatives of the interests affected an opportunity of being heard. It is not contested before us that the interests of all the 58 operators, who had filed objections to the proposed direction, were not identical and that they had a union of which Sardar Bhag Singh was the President. Sardar Bhag Singh in this case was served with a notice issued by the State Government in the registered envelope, and as a consequence of that service he had engaged the services of Mr. K.K. Khanna. Pleader and was represented before the Home Secretary Shri Shiv Shanker on the 16th December. 1961 when the objections were taken up by him for consideration The Vakalatnama appointing Shri K. K. Khanna as a pleader filed by Shri Bhag Singh shows that he described himself as the president of the union of the operators of the Jaipur Sikar route. Shri Khanna has filed an affidavit in this case, but he has nowhere said therein that he put in his appearance before Shri Shiv Shanker only on behalf of Bhag Singh. 12. Our attention has been drawn by Mr. Gupta to an application dated the 28th December, 1961, which was filed by S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not avail that opportunity of supporting their objections before the Home Secretary and the State Transport Authority The contention of the displaced contesting respondents is that all the petitioners were present in the meeting of the State Transport authority in the 13th January, 1962. It finds support from the affidavit filed by Kalyan Singh respondent in support of the reply submitted by the contesting displaced respondents. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Kalyan Singh respondent, especially when the petitioners themselves admit that Harjit Singh and some other petitioners were present before the State Transport Authority on the 13th January, 1962. In such circumstances, there was ample opportunity for the petitioners to put up their case before the Home Secretary and the State Transport Authority, and if they chose not to avail that opportunity, then they cannot lay blame on the Government for not being heard because they were not served with the notice for the meeting of the 15th December, 1961. 14. It is next contended by Mr. Agrawal that the recommendations of the Home Secretary also suffered from an infirmity that he heard the objections in clear vio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... objections before the Government. We do not find any flaw in the procedure adopted by the Home Secretary. The contention of Mr. Agrawal, in our opinion, has no force and it is, therefore, repelled. 16. This brings us to the second contention of Mr. Agrawal that the permits on the Jaipur-Bikaner route could not be issued by the Regional Transport Authority in pursuance of the directions issued by the State Government under Section 43 (1) (iii) of the Act without going through the procedure laid down for that purpose in Chapter IV of the Act. His argument is that the function of the Regional Transport Authority in the matter of granting permits under Chapter IV of the Act is quasi-judicial while the area covered by Section 43 of the Act is purely administrative, and does not include the area which is the subject-matter of the exercise of quasi-judicial authority by the Regional Transport Authorities Any permit, therefore, issued under the administrative instructions of the Government without following the procedure laid down in Chapter IV of the Act for the grant of permits cannot be said to be a valid permit and such a permit does not create any right in favour of its recipient. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provisions of Chapter IV of the Act. Section 68-C relates to the preparation and publication of scheme of road transport service of a State Transport undertaking and Section 68-D deals with the procedure for disposing of the objections filed by the persons affected by the scheme published under Section 68-C. Where a scheme is approved in accordance with the provisions of Sections 68-C and 68-D and In pursuance thereof the State Transport undertaking applies to the Regional Transport Authority for a permit in respect of a notified area or a notified route, then Section 68-F comes into play and it provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter IV, the Regional Transport Authority shall issue such a permit to the State Transport undertaking. Sub-Section (2) also provides for certain other actions to be taken by the Regional Transport Authority to give effect to the approved scheme and it may, by order, refuse to entertain any application for the renewal of any other permit, cancel any existing permit or modify the terms thereof so as to render the permit ineffective beyond a specified date; reduce the number of vehicles authorised to be used under the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this contention, he has referred to a Bench decision of this Court in Abdul Gafoor v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1962 Raj. 174 : ILR (1961) 11 Raj 1037 ). 21. This court in Abdul Gafoor's case AIR 1962 Raj 174 : ILR (1961) 11 Raj 1037 while dealing with the question as to how a dislodged operator can be compensated under Chapter IV-A of the Act, made the following observations: There appears to be, however, a more suitable method provided under the law which can be conveniently followed. This is provided for by Section 43 (1) (ii) of the Act. Under the proviso to this clause, the grants of permits for alternative routes have to be made after giving 'the interests affected thereby an opportunity of being heard.' 22. According to Mr. Agrawal, these observations of the learned Judges cannot be considered to be a good law as the Supreme Court in AIR 1964 SC 1573 has clearly laid down that the field covered by Section 43 of the Act is administrative and does not include the area which is the subject matter of the exercise of quasi-judicial authority by the relevant tribunals.' He further submitted that the grant of a permit under the instructions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 68-F (1) a quasi-judicial function.'' 24. In Kalyan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1962 SC 1183 their Lordships of the Supreme Court confirmed what they had held in Abdul Gafoor's case AIR 1962 Raj 174 : ILR (1961) 11 Raj 1037 and further observed: The Regional Transport Authority was by the terms of the scheme left no discretion In the matter. It was by the scheme that the right of the appellant was restricted and if the scheme became final and binding the Regional Transport Authority had no authority to permit the appellant to ply his vehicles. The order passed by the Regional Transport Authority was purely consequential on the scheme, and if the scheme is not open to challenge, orders consequential thereon will not also be open to challenge 25. These observations clearly show that the permits granted in pursuance of a scheme approved under Chapter IV-A is purely consequential and therefore it is an administrative act of the Regional Transport Authority and therefore it cannot be said that the permits given by the Regional Transport Authority its a result of the acceptance of a scheme, under Chapter IV-A is given in the discharge of its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly plying their vehicles on a particular route do acquire some kind of proprietary interest in the transport business on that particular route and when their right is affected by inducting fresh operators thereon, it is necessary under the law as well as on the principles of natural justice that they should be given adequate opportunity to file their objections and they should be heard before any alternative route Is granted to the displaced operators. It is also admitted by Mr. Agarwal that if the scheme prepared under Chapter IV-A of the Act itself includes a provision for the grant of permits to the displaced operators on some alternative route, then in that case the Regional Transport Authority can issue permits to them without complying with the requirements of the provisions of Chapter TV which relates to the grant of fresh permits, because the existing operators who are thereby to be affected had the opportunity of raising their objections under Section 68-D when the scheme was under preparation, but he con tends that if the scheme does not have any such provision of granting alternative route for the displaced operators then, according to him, the Regional Transport Aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of being heard before the Government. This shows that the instructions under Section 43 (1) (iii) are issued by the Government after giving opportunity to the persons affected of being heard before the State Government and after consulting the State Transport Authority who in the natural course of circumstances is conversant with the conditions prevailing on the routes affected by such instructions. 28. It may be observed that the Act creates a hierarchy of bodies with distinct functions and powers ascending from the Regional Transport Authority upto the State Government Section 68-G (2) provides that the Regional Transport Authority shall offer an alternative route to the displaced operators in order to compensate them for being dislodged from the notified area or route. There is no divergence of opinion on this point that the Regional Transport Authority while exercising this function under Section 68-G (2) acts purely in an administrative capacity The field of the operation of a Regional Transport Authority, as we know, is a limited one and it exercises its powers and functions within territorial limit assigned to it. It is, therefore, not expected that the Regional Transpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
