LexCAPITAL MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY BHOPAL AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l A CAPITAL MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY BHOPAL AND OTHERS B c D It ' 0 H v. THE STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS March 30, 1967 (K. N. WANCHOO, R. S. BACHAWAT AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 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 pro- ceedings-Whether authority to hear ob;ections can be appointed under the Ru/es of Business under Article 166(3) of the Constitution or only under s. 68-D (2-A)-W.'iether express finding necessary by authority that scheme would fulfil four-fold purposes mentioned 111 s. 68-C-Autho- rity 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 com· parative mer;ts of undertaking and private operators-Whether such evi- dence relevant-Therefore, whether hearing of obiections 'ailequate and real. On May 11, 1964, the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corpo- ration published two schemes for :he take-over by the corporation of cer- tain 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 objec- tions were imited within 30 days. After the objectiollll li.led by various private operators were heard by a Special Secretary to the State Govern- ment 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 appel- lants: (i) that the proposed schemes were bad as they were not in compli- ance 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 fQllr- fold 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 s. 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 rejec'ed the appellants applica- tion to summon documents from the Corporation to show that the Corpo- ration 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 330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1967] 3 S. C.R. than that of the private operators; and furthermore the authority had also A 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, (I) the nature of the ser- vices proposed to be rendered and (2) the area or route proposed to be covered; it lu1 ther requires that such other particulars respecting the B schemes as the rules may prescribe should be giYen. 11he particulara given in the present proposed schemes were clearly in compliance with the provisioDll 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 ~ow the rank of Secretary to the Government. The second pan is c procedural and states how tile officer should be appointed, namely, by noti- fication in the official ga
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.