B.A. LINGA REDDY ETC. ETC. versus KARNATAKASTATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 205 · Decided: 18-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 13 S.C.R. 205 
B.A. LINGAREDDYETC. ETC. 
v. 
KARNATAKASTATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11690-11712 of 2014) 
DECEMBER 18, 2014 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.102 - Scheme for c 
providing efficient road transport service in public interest -
Modification of scheme u/s. 102 - Requirement of giving 
reasons by the State Government while modifying the 
existing scheme uls. 102 - Held: When an authority makes 
an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function, it must record D 
its reasons in support of the order it makes - Modification of 
scheme is a quasi-judicial function -
Thus modification of 
scheme in absence of reasons cannot be said to be in 
accordance with the principles of natural justice - In the instant 
case, schemes for operating state carriage services were 
E 
modified whereby providing for operation of the services by 
permit holders who had been granted permits to ply their 
vehicles on inter-State routes with a condition not to pick up 
or set down the passengers on any portion of the routes 
overlapping the notified routes- High Court rightly quashed F 
the modification on the ground that authority did not apply its 
mind to the various objections filed by the Corporation- State 
Government to hear the objections and give a reasoned order 
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1939- s.68C -Administrative law-
Quasi judicial function. 
G 
Doctrine of Prospective overruling: Held: The power of 
prospective overruling is vested only in the Supreme Court 
and that too in constitutional matters- The law declared by 
205 
H 
206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 
A the Supreme Court is normally assumed to be the law from 
inception - Prospective operation is only exception to this 
normal rule. 
B 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is apparent from Section 102 of the Motor 
Vehicles Act of 1988 that the scheme is framed for 
providing efficient, adequate, economical and properly 
co-ordinated road transport service in public interest. 
C Section 102 does not lay down the requirement of 
recording any express finding on any particular aspect; 
whereas the duty is to hear and consider the objections. 
It requires the State Government to act in public interest 
to cancel or modify a scheme after giving the State 
0 Transport Undertaking or any other affected person by 
the proposed modification an opportunity of hearing. The 
State is supposed to be acting in public interest while 
exercising the power under the provision. However, that 
does not dispense with the requirement to record 
E reasons while dealing with objections. [Para 18] 
[226-G-H; 227-A-B] 
2. Modification of the scheme is a quasi-judicial 
function. The State Government is duty-bound to 
F consider the objections and to give reasons either to 
accept or reject them. The rule of reason is anti-thesis to 
arbitrariness in action and is a necessary concomitant 
of the principles of natural justice. It is apparent from 
the order that there was no consideration of the 
G objections except mentioning the arguments of the rival 
parties. Objections both factual and legal were not 
considered much less reasons assigned to overrule 
them. Even in brief, reasons were not assigned indicating 
how objections were disposed of. Thus, modification of 
H 
8. A. LINGA REDDY ETC. ETC. v. KARNATAKA STATE 
207 
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY 
the Schemes could not be said to be in accordance with A 
the principles of natural justice in the absence of reasons 
so as to reach the conclusion that private operators are 
meeting the genuine demands of the public in excess of 
the service provided by the STOs, hence, it cannot be 
said to be sustainable. [Paras 19, 28, 29][227-C; 
B 
233-G-H; 234-A-C] 
Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of 
India Ltd. v. Union of India 1976 (2) SCC 981: 
1976 (0) Suppl. SCR 489; S.N. Mukherjee v. 
Union of India 1990 (4) SCC 594 : 1990 (1) Suppl. 
SCR 44; Krishna Swami v. Union of India & Ors. 
1992 (4) sec 605 : 1992 (1) Suppl. SCR 53; 
Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. 
Meenakshi Mills Ltd. & Anr. 1992 (3) SCC 336: 
1992 (3) SCR 409; Divisional Forest Oft:cer, 
Kothagudem & Ors. v. Madhusudhan Rao 2008 
(3) SCC 469 : 2008 (2) SCR 610; Chairman, 
Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya 
Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & Ors. · 
. 2009 (4) SCC 240: 2009 (5) SCR 326; Manohar 
v. State of Maharashtra &Anr. 2012 (13) SCC 14: 
2012 (12
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.