RAMNATH VER.MA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1963] 2 S.C.R. 152 · Decided: 17-04-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · 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)

Ap1i/ ]'/, 
152 
bUPREMll: COURT REl'ORTS (H163J 
RAMNATH VER.MA 
"· 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAB, K. N. 
WANCHOO, N . .ltAJAGOPALA AYYANGAB and 
T. L. VENKAT'ABAM• AIYAR, JJ.) 
Mo/tJr Vehicla-Objection to Schem•-Power of OJ!jur 
!tearing objection-Pennit mad< intJ!ectire /or 011<r lapping 
rot1te-l/ dt•criminatory-Motor l'ehtclu A.ct, 1939 (4 of 11139), 
"· 68 C, 68D, 68G-Von.titt.tion of India, Art. 14. 
The Rajas<han State Roadways, "hich is a State Trans-
port Undertaking, published five schemes under s. 68C of 
the Motor Vehicles Act. The State Government appointed 
the Legal Remembrancer to hear objections filed, amongst 
others, by the appellants who were plying their bulOI on 
three of those· five routes. The schemes relating to those 
three routes· were approved with slight modifications, The 
objectors in respect of the other two schemes, unlike the 
appellants, wanted the schemes to be entirely rejected and to 
adduce evidence. The Legal Remei:nbranccr relying on a 
decision of the High Court held that he had no power to 
reject a scheme in its entirely or to take evidence. 
One of 
the objectors filed " writ petition in the High Court but it 
was rejected. He came up in appeal to tlus Court. This 
Court overruled the decuion of the Rajasthan High Court in 
Chandra Bhan v. Stale of Raja.than and held that it was open 
to the Legal Remembrancer to reject the draft scheme a.nd 
to take evidence if necessary (vide Malik Ram v. State of 
RajCJ&than, 
(195~] I S. C.R. 978). The result was that a 
lar8e number ol writ petitions were filed in the ffigh Court 
and that court dismissed those relating to the three routes, 
with which the present appeals were concerned; on the 
ground that the appellants had neither wanted a total rejec-
tion of the schemes nor to adduce evidence and had, thcrc-
fOI e, no concern with the decision in Chandra Bhan'• C<U<. 
It was not the case of appellants in the High Court, that 
tliey had wanted to adduce any evidence that had been shut 
out by legal Remembrancer nor did they indicate·in this 
Court what evidence they wanted to produce in support of 
the objections raised by them. 
Held, that the ai-prllants could not be allowed to take 
advantage of the decision of.this- Court in Malik Ram.'• case. 
i 
.. 
• 
~-' 
2 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REl OltTS 
153 
It was clear that their objections could be and ~ere offe.ct-
ively dealt with by the Lrgal Ren embrancer wHhout gomg 
into evidence and the order passed by.him .approving· the 
schemes under s. 68D of the. Motor Vehicles Act was not'in 
any way vitiated by. his· wrong.approach with regard to the 
other objections. 
MMik Ram v. Stau oj'f;ajasthan [1962], I S •. C. R. 978, 
referred to. 
I't was· permissible· under s. 68C of the Acl'to frame a 
scheme in partial' exclusion of private operators and making 
the permit ineffective· for the overlapping part of the route 
was no: more. than, !lartial. exclusion and was, 
thercfOJ"e, 
justified under s. 68G of the Act. 
Although• a petmit holder whose·permit wuthus made 
ineffective 
could not claim compensation under s. 68G, 
whereas one, whose permit was cancelled for the overlapping 
pitrt, could, there. could be no discrimination within the 
meaning of Art. 14 of the Constitution. unle>S it could be 
shown that· the· advantage· to the·former by being allowed to 
pick up passengers· on· tll<: overlapping pa1t of the route for 
destination. beyond. was unequal to the compensation which 
he would have got by having.his permit.cancelled for the 
overlapping part. 
Discrimination under A"rt. 14 is censcious discrimination 
and not accidental discrimination· that arise. from oversight 
which the Statds ready to rectify. 
CrvIL APPELLATE JuBISDIOTION : Civil Appeal 
Nos. 142.--146 of 1962. 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated 
\ 
~a:y 3, 1.961, of the· Rajasthan High Court in D. B. 
J 
Civil Writs,Nos. 40, a9, 45; 46.and 77 of 1961. 
S,arjoo Prasad, V. P. Gyagi, D. P. Gupt.a. and 
H. P. M akeahwari,, for. *he appellants. 
• 
0. K. Daphttlry, Bolioitor General of India, 
Kansingh, B. R. Kapur and. P. D; M~non. for- the 
'7 
respondents. 
"'1 
1962. 
April 17. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
JS6' 
L·mnalh Vtttn'l 
v. 
S'~'e t.f Rajoa,hJ r. 
v. 
154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [163) 
WANcaoo, J.-These five appe•le on oorti-
li.catee granted by the Rajaethan High Court raise 
common questions and will be dea.lt with together. 
Appeals Noe. 142, 144
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.