NEHRU MOTOR TRANSPORT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

Citation: [1964] 1 S.C.R. 220 · Decided: 14-12-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1962 
Dtumher, 14. 
220 SUPRE:\\.fE,COURT REPORTS [1964-] VOL· 
NEHRU MOTOR TR.ANSJ,>ORT CO-
OPERA)'IVE SOCIETY, .L;rD., ~ND OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
K. N. WANCJioo, K. C. DAS GuP'd, and 
J.C. SHAH, JJ.) 
Motor Vehicle-Publication of acheme-Scheme, if cpnsti-
ttdionully valid-Motor Veliicles Act, 1939 (4 af 1939), as. (J~O, 
68D (3)-Rajasthan .State Raad 
Transpo~t Services (Develop-
ment) Rules, JflGO, r. 3...,.-0anstltution of India, Arts. 14, 32. 
The petitioners were holders of St;ge·carriag-e pr.rmits on 
Jodhpur-Bilara and Bilara-Ileawar routes. 
The Raja.•than 
Roadways published a. draft scheme which provided for taking 
over the transport service on-..the J odhpur- '1Hilra-Beawar-Aj· 
mer route bY the Roacl\vays and also for La1'ing ove.r three over· 
lapping routes or 
po1~tions thereof 
whiclt 
were · entirely on 
Jodhpur-1lil:ira-Beawaf>-Ajp1er road and the names of the 
permit-holders on these three OvCrlapping routes \vlth their 
per1nits \\'ere aLc;-, specified for cancellation and no other trans ... 
port vehicles were toply on the route' to be taken over. The 
petitioners filed objection and 
challeng~c:! the scheme on the 
ground of disc1 iminat ion before the Legal Re1ne1nbrat'lcer a ... -
son1e overlapping rou!es \Vere not notified. 
He J;,elJ that even 
though ~these routes \\'ere not specifieO in the draft ~chcme and 
no notice had been given to the permit holders thereof, it was 
o'pen to hiin to render the permits ineffective with rcsp'cct to 
these rotJtes-also and 
p~ssed orderS accordingly. 'l'hc pcrmit-
holders affected uy the order of tlie Legal Remembrancer filed 
writ petitions in the High Ct>urt. 'fhc I-Iigh Court clircctecl 
the Legal lle1nen1branccr to go into th~ n1atter again and to 
leave the question of tlic twelve partially overlapping routes 
for a subsequent schCmc. 
'fhc cffecr of the decision of the 
LegaJ Reme-,nbrancer considered in th~ light of the decision of 
the High Court was that all the twelve partially overlapping 
routes were left out of the scheme and on.Iv the three route~ 
notified in the draft·schcn1e 
were 
affected. 
The 
present 
petition is directed against his decisi'Jn approving the scheme 
as modifierl by him and phblished on August 31 , 1962. ln 
this Court it was urged (I) that the procedure of approving a 
part ·of the sclleme oner. and 'lnother part !~ter was illrgal ; 
i S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
221 
(ii) that the approval of the scheme by the Legal Rem· 
embrancer after abdication of his own judgment was not a 
valid approval ; (iii) that the Legal Remembrancer ought to 
have given a fresh hearing ab initio to the objectors ; '(iv) tliat 
thcrl! \Vas uu proper hearing and (v) that there \vas 9iscrimi-
nation, as the operators of the tweh-e 1fartially overlapping 
r<-ute' were left out of the scheme. 
· 
Held, that as the twelve overlapping routes were never 
included in the draft scheme, the approval given to the draft 
scheme without touching these routes cannot be called an 
approval of a part of the scheme. 
Held, 
furthd that in the present case the order of the 
High Court was analogous to a remand order and therefore, 
the decision of the Legal Remembrancer must he treated as a 
fresh decision and not a review of his earlier decision and there · 
was nu abdicatiou by him of his functions. 
Held, further, that when the ohjectors had been given full 
opporlunity to lea<l evidence on the previous occasion \Vhich 
was still 
there for 
the Legal Rememhrancer to take into 
account, it was sufficient for hin1 to hear the objector's argu· 
mcnts. If it is borne in mind that the order passed by the 
High Court in the proceedings \Vas in the nature of a ren1and 
01dcr, this objection iuust fail, 
Held, further, that the fact that the rules did not provide 
for a coercive process to secure attendance of witnesses did 
not 111ean that there could be no proper hearing 'vithout it. 
Held, further, that under s. 68C it was open to the State 
Government to take over any area or route to the complete or 
partial exclusion of other persc. .is and there ""'as no discrimina .. 
tion in the present case for routes completely covered, by the 
route taken over stand on a different footing fron1 the routes 
only partially covered. 
ORIGINAL jum~mc'l'ICN: Writ petition No. 142 
of Hl62. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of 
India for the enforcement of fundamental rights. 
B. CMiangan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.