LexC. S. ROWJEE AND OTHERS versus ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1964 Balmukand must be left unperformed forms a considerable portion of the whole, or does not admit of compensation in money, he is not entitled to obtain a decree for specific performance. But the court may, at the suit of the other party, direct the party in default to perform specifi. cally so much of his part of the contract as he can perform, provided that the plaintiff relin- quishes all claim to further performance, and all right to compensation either for the defici· ency, or for the loss or damage sustained by him through the default of the defendant." v. Kamlawati MudholklJI' J. 1964 January, 27 However, in the case before us there is no claim on behalf ot the plaintiff that he is willing to pay the entire considera· tion for obtaining a decree against the interest of Pindidas alone in the property. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. C. S. ROWJEE AND OTHERS v. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (B. P. SINHA, C.J., K. SUBBA RAo, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, N. R.AJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR JI.) Motor Vehicles-Nationalisation of road transport 1ervice-Pree.aration and enforcement of scheme-Validity-Issue of permits fo State Transport Undertakings-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939), "' amended by Act I of 1956, Ch. IV, ss. 68C, 68D(3), 68F(l)- Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1957, rr 4, 141. The respondent corporation appointed an expert committee to go into the question as to the working of nationalised ~~nsport in the S_tate. i:ie Committee laid down the criteria for determining the order 1n which 6 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 331 areas and routes had to be selected for nationalisation and had drawn up a list of the remaining districts in which nationalisation should be suctes- sively taken up. Accordingly, Nellore would have been the next district to be taken up and the turn of Kurnool district would have come up _after nationalisation of the routes in Nellore, Chittore and Cuddapah dist- ricts were completed. This report was submitted to the Corporation in February, 1961 and the Corporation accepted it and embodied the approval in its Administration Report dated March 24, 1962 which was published in April, 1962. After the General Election in 1962 the Chief Minister assumed office as Chief Minister on March 12, 1962. On April 19, 1962, he summoned a conference of the Corporation at which, he suggested that the nationalisation of bus routes in the Kurnool district should be taken up first. By its resolution dated 4-5-1962, the Corporation made an alteration in the order of the districts, successively to be taken up for nationalisation and selected the western half of the Kurnool as the area to be nationalised in the first instance. ·ne appellants, motor transport operators whose routes were all in western half of the Kumool districts filed objections to the Schemes before the Transport Minister. The Trans- port Minister approved the schemes. Thereafter, the Corporation applied to the Regional Transport Authority for permits. The appellants then challenged the validity of the schemes in the High Court and in support of that allegations were made in the affidavit that the ..Chief Minister was motivated by bias and personal ill-will against the appellants, that he tell chagrined at the defeat of his partymen and supporters and desiring to wreak his vengeance against the motor transport operators of the western parts of Kwnool, his political opponents, instructed the Corporation to change the order in which the districts should be taken up for nationalisa- tion and that the corporation gave effect to these instructions and direc- tions. These allegations were not denied by the Chief Minister, nor was an affidavit filed by any person who could claim to know personally about the truth about these allegations. 1~he High Court repelled these allega- tions and dismissed the petition. On appeal by certificate the appellants mainly contended: (1) that the schemes did not in reality reflect the opinion of the Corporation as required by s. 68-C of the Act, but that the schemes owed their origin to the direction of the Chief Minister who acted ma la fide in directing the Transport Undertaking to frame the im- pugned schemes; (2) that the approval of the schemes by the Transport Minister under s. 68-D(3) must be held to be vitiated by the malafides of th.e C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.