TMI Blog1961 (4) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). In the circumstances we must hold that the approval of the scheme was without a proper hearing under s. 68-D(2), which, even though arguments were heard in full in this case, vitiates the approval given to the scheme by the officer concerned. Appeal allowed. - Civil Appeal No. 135 of 1961 - - - Dated:- 14-4-1961 - Wanchoo, K. N., Gajendragadkar, P. B., Sarkar, A.K., Das, S.K. And Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala,JJ. JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J.-These two connected matters arise out of an order approving a scheme framed under Chap. IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, No. IV of 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and will be disposed of together. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration before the officer appointed to hear objections on November 21,, 1960. An application was made before him that the appellant should be permitted to give evidence on points of fact which were narrated in the application in order that the officer may be in a position to decide the objections justly. This application was rejected by the officer on the ground that there was no provision in the Rules for recording of evidence of witnesses. The matter then came up for consideration on November 23, 1960. On that date another application was made in which it was said that the appellant wanted to lead evidence to show that the draft scheme must be rejected in its entirety, and it was contended that the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er side. It is contended that in view of these two wrong decisions of the officer his approach to what he had to do in dealing with objections under s. 68-D was quite incorrect., with the result that there was no effective hearing of the objections and any approval given to the scheme in these circumstances is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled "to be heard" in the real sense in which those words were used in s. 68-D (2). Re. (i). Section 68-D (2) with which we are concerned is in these words:- "The State Government may, after considering the objections and after giving an opportunity to the objector or his representatives and the representatives of the State transport undertaking to be heard in the matter, if they s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jected and the State Transport Undertaking may have to submit another scheme for approval. When s. 68-E speaks of cancellation it refers to a scheme already approved under s. 68-D(3), and in that con. text the word "cancellation" is properly used. But the fact that s. 68-E provides for the cancellation of a scheme which has already been approved, does not mean that it is not open to the State Government under s. 68-D(2) to say, after hearing the objections, that it does not approve the scheme at all which is put up before it as a draft for approval. We are therefore of the opinion that under s. 68-D(2) it is open to the State Government to say after hearing objections that it does not approve of the draft scheme at all, in which case the dr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumentary. Now it has been held by this Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ([1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 319) that a State Government acts as a quasi-judicial tribunal when giving a hearing under s. 68-D. The purpose of the hearing is that the State Government has to satisfy itself that the opinion of the State Transport Undertaking formed under s. 68-C, namely that the scheme is for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service, is correct. The objections are all made to show that the scheme does not provide for an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service. In order therefore to arrive at the conclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly and the State Government when giving the hearing would be powerless to check this. We need only point out that though evidence may have to be taken under s. 68-D(2) it does not follow that the evidence would be necessary in every case. It will therefore be for the State Government, or as in this case the officer concerned, to decide in case any party desires to lead evidence whether firstly the evidence is necessary and relevant to the inquiry before it. If it considers that evidence is necessary, it will give a reasonable opportunity to the party desiring to produce evidence to give evidence relevant to the enquiry and within reason and it would have all the powers of controlling the giving and the recording of evidence that any court h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
