Summary
On May 11, 1964, the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation published two schemes for the take-over by the corporation of certain routes under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 4 of 1939 to the exclusion of the existing private operators on those routes and objections were invited within 30 days. After the objections filed by various private operators were heard by a Special Secretary to the State Government empowered under s. 68-D of the Act, he passed orders on June 8, 1965, modifying the schemes in certain particulars. The modified and corrected schemes were finally published on June 18, 1966. Writ petitions were thereafter filed by the appellants challenging the two schemes but were dismissed by the High Court.
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants:(i) that the proposed schemes were bad as they were not in compliance with s. 68-C of the Act and the rules framed thereunder for they did not give necessary particulars which would enable the appellants to formulate their objections to the proposed schemes in respect of the fourfold purposes mentioned in s. 68-C i.e., that a scheme should be for the purposes of providing an "efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated Road Transport Service" and that as the proposed schemes were themselves bad, the entire proceedings initiated by them must fall through; (ii) that the Special Secretary who heard the objections on behalf of the State Government was not validly authorised to do so as he had been appointed under the Rules of Business framed under Art. 166(3) of the Constitution while the appointment should have been under s. 68-D (2-A) of the Act; (iii) that the order approving the schemes passed on June 8, 1965 was invalid as it did not say that the schemes fulfilled the purposes mentioned in a 68-C and an express finding to this effect was necessary to validate the schemes; (iv) that the hearing given by the authority to the objectors was not adequate -and real as required under s. 68-D of the Act : the authority wrongly rejected the appellants application to summon documents from the Corporation to show that the Corporation did not have the equipment and finances to carry out the schemes. and that the Corporation's past record of running its services was worse 330than that of the private Operators; and furthermore the authority had also wrongly refused to summons witnesses sought to be called to show that the schemes would not fulfil the four-fold purposes stated in s. 68-C.HELD: Dismissing the appeal : (i) S. 68-C requires two things, namely, (1) the nature of the services proposed to be rendered and (2) the area or route proposed to be covered; it further requires that such other particulars respecting the schemes as the rules may prescribe should be given. The particulars given in the present proposed schemes were clearly in compliance with the provisions of s, 68-C and that was enough for validly originating the proceedings. [334B, G](ii) The first part of s. 68-D(2-a), which is the substantive part, lays down that the person who is to hear the objections cannot be an officer below the rank of Secretary to the Government. The second part is procedural and states how the officer should be appointed, namely, by notification in the official gazette. In the present case as the person appointed was a Special Secretary, the substantive part of the provision had been complied with.As far as the second and procedural part was concerned, the appointment of the authority could be by notification as provided in the Section or by an order under the Rules of Business under Art. 166(3) of the Constitution.Accordingly, the appointment of the authority to hear objections in the present case could not be considered invalid. [335H; 336C-D](iii) There is no express provision in Section 68-C read with Section 68-D that the authority hearing objections must come to a finding that the scheme under examination provides an efficient, adequate, economical and' properly coordinated road transport service. In the absence of such a provision, the very order of the State Government or the authority ap- pointed must be held to mean either, where the scheme is approved or modified, that it subserves the purposes mentioned in s. 68-C or where it is rejected, that it does not. [337B, D-E](iv) The authority had rightly held the documentary and oral evidence proposed to be called was irrelevant and the hearing of the objections was therefore both adequate and real.Chapter (IV-A) of the Act was enacted for nationalisation of road transport services in accordance with the amended Article 19(6) of the Constitution. The nationalised road transport under the Chapter can only be run by a State Transport Undertaking defined by s. 68-A (b) of the Act which would always be under the control of the Central or State Government. In this context, it would be futile for any object to show that the undertaking backed by the Central or State Governments could not have the equipment or finances to carry out the schemes. Furthermore, as only a State Transport Undertaking can run a nationalised service, there was no necessity for considering the comparative merits of the undertaking and individual private operators.[341C-E, G]If a party concerned wishes to produce any document or produce any witness, the authority may take the documentary evidence into consideration or take the evidence of the witness, if it considers such evidence relevant and necessary. But there is in the absence of any provision in the Act or the Rules, no power in the authority or the State Government to compel attendance of witnesses or to compel production of documents. This is not to say that if the authority wants any party before it to produce any document for satisfying itself whether the scheme is for the purpose mentioned in s. 68-C it cannot so ask; and if the party asked to produce 331documents does not do so, the authority would be entitled to draw such inferences as it might consider justified from the non-production of documents. But apart from this, there is no power conferred on the authority under the Act or the Madhya Pradesh Rules to compel production of documentary evidence or to summon any witness. [339H-340c]Gullapalli Nageswara Rao, v. Andhra Pradesh Road Transport.[1959] 1 S.C.R. 319, Malik Ram v. State of Rajasthan.[1962] 1 S.C.R. 978 and Nehru Motor Transport Co-operative Society, Limited v. The State of Rajasthan, [1964] 1 S.C.R.220, referred to.See the full content of this document
Extract
Capital Multi-purpose Co-operative Societybhopal And Other VS. The State Of M.P. & Others
PETITIONER: CAPITAL MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETYBHOPAL AND OTHERS Vs.RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF M.P. & OTHERSDATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/03/1967BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N.BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N.BACHAWAT, R.S.RAMASWAMI, V.CITATION: 1967 AIR 1815 1967 SCR (3) 329CITATOR INFO : 1970 SC1102 (17) 1971 SC1986 (10) 1977 SC 24 (8) 1977 SC 441 (20) 1981 SC 660 (4,7,9)ACT: Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939)-Ss. 68A, 68-C and 68D-State Road Transport Corporation publishing schemes for take-over of certain routes-Particulars to be given in the scheme for validly originating proceedings-Whether authority to hear objections can be appointed under the Rules of Business under Article 166(3) of the Constitution or only under s.68-D (2-A)-Whether express finding necessary by authority that scheme would fulfil four-fold purposes mentioned in s.68-C-Authority not summoning documents or witnesses at the instance of objectors regarding past records or financial position to consider ability of the State Undertaking to run nationalised transport services and to consider comparative merits of undertaking and private operators-Whether such evidence relevant-Therefore, whether hearing of objections adequate and real.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2201 and 2202 of 1966.Appeals from the judgment and order dated September 15, 1966 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petitions Nos.351 and 311 of 1965 respectively.M.N. Phadke, Naunit Lal, Y. S. Dharmadhikari and M. N.Puranik, for the appellants (in both the appeals).A.P. Sen, Advocate-General for the State of Madhya Pradesh and I.N. Shroff, for the respondent No. 1 (in both the appeals)....
See the full content of this document