SOBHRAJ ODHARMAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 99 · Decided: 17-09-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
99 
SOBHRAJ ODHARMAL 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(B. P. SINHA, C. J., JAFER !MAM, K. SuBBA RA.o, 
J. c. SHAH, N.. RAJAGOPALA 
AYYANGAR AND 
J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Road Transport-Scheme-Objections--Notice of hearing-
Whether sufficient-Approval o.f Scheme-:-Cance.llation o.f P.ermits 
of private operators-State plying vehicles unthout permits-.Jf 
infringes fumlamental right-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 
1939), ss. 42 (1) and 68R-Rajasthan State Road Transport 
Service (Development) Rules, 1960, r. 7(4). 
A scheme for operating a motor transport servic~ on t~e 
Jaipur-Kotah route by the State Roadways was published m 
the Government Gazette. 
61 private operators on the route 
filed objection·; to the scheme. The Legal Remembrancer heard 
the objections and rejected them. The scheme was approved by 
the Slate Government and 
was published. Sorne of the 
operators moved the High Court for a writ quashing the scheme. 
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the scheme and 
directed the Legal Remembrancer to rehear the objections. The 
Legal Remembrancer sent individual notices by registered post 
to the 61 operators fixing the date of hearing and also published 
the notice in the Gazette. Notices were delivered to 13 operators 
and 39 were returned unserved. The Legal Remembrancer 
heard the objections and approved the scheme, which was then 
published in the Gazette. The Regional Transport Authority 
issued an order declaring that the Roadways shall operate on 
the route and cancelled the permits of the private operators. 
The Roadways commenced operating without permits but 
subsequently they were granted permits. The appellants moved 
the High Court for a writ to quash the scheme but the High 
Court rejected the application. The appellants appealed to the 
Supreme Court against tjie order of the High Cour•; one of them 
filed a petition for a writ alleging that his right to carry on 
business was 
infringed. 
The appellants contended that the 
proceedings before the Legal Remembrancer were illegal as 
not!ces wer~ not served upon all_ th~ operators, that r.7(4) 
which provided that on the pubhcat10n of the notice in the 
Gazet\e it shall be presumed that all the parties concerned have 
bee~ duly intimated was illegal and that the plying of the 
vehicles by the Roadways without obtaining permits infringed 
1962 
September I 7. 
1962 
S(Jbhra} Odharmal 
v. 
State of Rajasthan 
100 SUPRE.ME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
the fundamental rights of the appellants to carry on their 
trade. 
Hekl, that the appellants were duly served with the 
notice of hearing of the objections before the Legal Remem-
brancer, and if they failed to appear before him to press their 
objections they could not challenge the scheme after it was duly 
published and had become final. The Legal Remembrancer 
was of the opinion that even those operators who had not been 
personally served had notice of the heariug. The opinion of 
the Legal Remembrancer was based upon evidence and he did 
not rely upon the presumption under r. 7 ( 4). The High Court 
had also held that the objectors were duly served and the 
Supreme Court, according to its settled practice, did not interfere 
with such findings. 
H~U, further, 
that no fundamental right 
of 
the 
appellants was infringed. Once a scheme was legally and 
properly made and published, the permits of the private 
operators on the route could be lawfully cancelled and they 
would not be entitled to challenge the plying of the vehicles 
by the State Roadways with or without permits. Since the 
permits of the appellants were lawfully cancelled their rights 
were extinguished and they had no fundamental rights which 
could be infringed. On the finalisation of the scheme the 
Regional Transport Authority had no option but to grant 
permits to the State Roadways. 
Abdul Gafoor v. State of Mysore, [1962] I S.C.R. 909, 
Samarth Transport Co. (P) Lid. v. Regional Transport Authority, 
(1961) I S.C.R. 631 and Kalyan Singh v. State of U. P. 
[1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 76, referred to. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE/ORIGINAL 
JURISDICTION : 
Civil Appeal 471of1962. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 9th 
May, 1962, of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. 
Civil Misc. Write No. 214 of 1962. 
WITH 
Writ Petition No. 66 of 1962. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India 
for the enforcement of fundamental rights. 
M. C. 
Set,alvad, 
Attnrney-General for India, 
R. K. Garg, D. P. Sing

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