MALIK RAM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 978 · Decided: 14-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

Apdl I4. 
978 
SUPREME COtJR'l' REPORTS 
MALIK RAM 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. N. W ANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
[1962] 
Motor Vehicles-Objection to scheme-Power of Officer appoint-
ed to hear such objection-Recording of evidence-Cancellation of , 
scheme-Motor Vehicles Act, I939 (4 of r939), s. 68-D(2)--Rajas-
than State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules, r960, 
r. 7(6). 
Bys. 68-D(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, "The State 
Government may, after considering the objections and after 
giving an opportunity to the objector or his representatives and 
the representatives of the State Transport Undertaking to be 
heard in the matter, if they so desire, approve or modify the 
scheme". The appellant's objections to the draft scheme in 
question were heard by the Legal Remembrancer, appointed 
by the State Government to hear such objections, under r. 7(6) 
of the Rajasthan State Transport Services (Development) Rules, 
1960, framed under s. 68-I of the Act. The appellan1 applied 
to the said Officer for permission to give evidence in order that 
he could show that the entire scheme ought to be rejected. His 
applications were rejected by the Officer holding that the Rules 
did not provide for recording of evidence and that according to 
a decision of the Rajasthan High Court, dated November 9, 
1960, s. 68-D(2) of the Act did not empower him to cancel the 
draft scheme in its entirety. He, therefore, heard the arguments 
addressed on behalf of the appellant and approved the scheme. 
After moving unsuccessfully the Rajasthan High Court, the 
appellant appealed to this Court by special leave, 
Held, that the Officer was in error on both the points. Sec-
tion 68-D(2) of the Act clearly implies that the authority which 
has to approve or modify the scheme, has also the power, if it 
thinks proper, to disapprove the scheme altogether. The words 
"may approve" in the section, properly construed, must also 
include "may not approve". 
The use of the word "shall" in r. 7(6) of the Rules instead 
of the word nmay'', which is otherwise similar in its terms to 
s. 68-D(2) of the Act, can make no difference. 
In hearing objections under s. 68-D(z) of the Act, the State 
Government or its Officers act as a quasi-judicial tribunal and 
regard being to the nature of the objections and the purpose of 
the hearing thereunder, there can be no doubt that production 
of evidence, both oral and documentary, is clearly contemplat-
ed by the section. 
,, 
1
. 
1
l 
' .. 
' I 
) 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
979 
Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road 
z96r 
Transport Corporation, [1959] Supp. l S.C.R. 319. referred to. 
But that does not mean that the parties can produce any 
Malik Ram 
amount of evidence merely to prolong the proceeding. It is for 
--. 
the State Government or the Officer to decide whether the evi- Stale of Ra1asthan 
dence sought to be adduced is necessary and relevant to the 
enquiry and, if so, they will have all the powers that a court 
has of controlling the giving and recording _of such evidence. 
Where a draft scheme is disapproved under s. 68-D(z) anC! 
thus stands rejected, any fresh scheme that may have to be 
framed, must be framed according to the procedure prescribed 
by Ch. IV A of the Act. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 135 of 1961. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated January 3, 1961, of the Rajasthan High 
Court, Jodhpur, in Civil Writ Petition No. 1 of 1961. 
M. K. Nambiar, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh, M. K. 
Ramamurthi and S. O. Agarwala, for the appellant-
petitiouer. 
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, 
G. 0. Kasliwal, Advocate-General of Rajasthan, Khan 
Singh and D. Gupta, for the respondents. 
1961. April 14. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
WANCHOO, J.-These two connected matters arise 
wanchoo J. 
out of an order approving a scheme framed under 
Chap. IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, No. IV of 1939, 
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) and will be disposed 
~ • 
of together. The brief facts necessary for present 
purposes are these. The appellant was plying a bus 
between Jaipur and Ajmer on a permit granted to him 
for three years by resolution of the Regional Transport 
Authority, Jaipur, dated December 16/17, 1958. In 
August, 1960, the State Government promulgated rules 
under s. 68-I of the Act, called the Rajasthan State 
Road T

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.