LexANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus M.GURIVI REDDY AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-< ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT A CORPORATION v. M.GUR!VI REDDY AND ORS. ETC. ETC. AUGUST 19, 1992 I B >- [LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: Sections 68-C and 68-D-Draft scheme for nationalisation of certain c routes-Published in Gazette in 1977-Approval in 1983-Quashed by High Court-Change in Govemment--Fresh objections filed and heard-Conup- + tion charges against Transport Ministe,-.Scheme approved in 1984-Gazetted after 1 year by New Government when the Minister was no more in . power-Allegations of conuption and bias-Whether substantiated-Approval · of the Schemes-Whether valid-Delay caused in approval of the Schem~ D Whether reasonable: The respondents were plying stage carriages on various routes in a district. On 17.S.1977, the appellant-Corporation gazetted about 70 draft -f schemes proposing to ply their buses to the complete exclusion of other , E private operators plying their vehicles in that district. The private operators raised their objections to the schemes, and only in 1983 when a '""C new Government was formed, the schemes were approved by the 1 Transport Minister. Against this order, the private operators ,filed writ Petitions and the High Court quashed the order with a direction that the ~ operators should be heard afresh and the change in circumstances should 1 F be taken into account before finalising the schemes. Thereafter: fresh objections were invited and the Transport Mini- ster heard the objections. The operators objected to this alleging that the I Transport Minister had taken illegal gratification from some of the G operators promising to defer the schemes. In the meantime there was ~ again a change in the Government, but the Transport Minister continued as such in the new Government as well and he approved the scheme. Again there was a change in Government and the new Government issued various orders approving the schemes. Against this, Writ Petitions were · tiled before the High Court. Most of the Writ Petitions were dismissed on H 935 936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R. A the short ground that the petitioners did not approach the Court with clean hands, as the p:titioners claimed they bribed the Transport Mini- ster for deferring the scheme of nationalisation. The other Writ Petitions were alfo1l·ed, and the State Government wns directed to give a fft'.sh bearinJI: to the petitioners before finalising the scheme afresh. B The present appeals were filed against that part of the High Court's order· allowing some of the Writ Petitions. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that there was hardly any case of bias made out against the Minister and the allegations made C wene vague and not substantiated; and that the gazette notifications ap- proving the schemes were issued much later, when the Transport Minister was no longer in charge of the Ministry concerned, which indicated that the ;approval by the Minister had been ratified by the subsequent Govern- )- . me•at of which he was not a member. + D On behalf of the Respondents, it was urged that there was inor- E dinate delay in the approval of the schemes and that the appellant-Cor- poration was not in a fit condition to ply buses on all the routes on account of its bad management and poor financial position. Allowing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1. The Transport Minister did not do anything to oblige the transporters who were said to have given him illegal gratification. In fact he acted contrary to their interests. His approval of the schemes could well have been motivated by his faith in the nationalisation policy rather than F represent an attempt to get out of an embarrassing situation created by the allegations made against him as. surmised by the High Court. This consideration apart, there was no specific material to substantiate the allegatioJJs of corruption referred to or relied upon by the High Court. Also, the approval was gazetted only almost a year later, after the con- G cerned Minister went out of-the picture. Having regard to all these con- siderations, the High Court's conclusion that the enquiry and approval were biased and therefore the scheme should be quashed is based on no material and cannot be sustained. [941E-G] 2!. The contention as to the delay between 1977 when the draft H schemes were gazetted and the first approval in 1983 has been examined S.R.T.C. v. GURIVI REDDY [RANGAN
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.