LexVISHUNDAS HUNDUMAL, ETC. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
.F
G
H
234
VISHUNDAS HUNDUMAL, ETC.
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
March 13, 1981
[D.A. DESAI, A.D. KOSHAL AND A.P. SEN, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939~Scheme No. 50-M reserving notified routes for
exclusive operation by the Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation-Certain.
operators'permits only were curtailed and they were prohibited fro•n operating their
stage carriages on a portion of their routes which were overlapping with the noti-
fied route leaving 19 others· untouched, through oversight-Whether such an action
amounts to hostile discrimination.
Allowing the petitions, the Court
HELD : (I) Undoubtedly, the error or omission was on the part of the
Regional Transport Authority in the instant case, in not supplying full informa-
tion to the Special Secretary a bout all the valid permits in force at the relevant
time and which were either to be curtailed or cancelled consequent upon the
approval of the scheme. This error or omission on the part of the Regional
Transport Authority has resulted in gross discrimination between the transport
operators in the same class in that some have their permits remaining intact
with right to ply their vehicles on the notified route and some others whose
permits are curtailed. When discrimination is glaring the State cannot take
recourse to inadvertance in its action resulting .in discrimination.
[237 D-E &
238 B-C]
(2) Conceding that this was discrimination unconsciously indulged into
by inadvertence or oversight on the part of a governmental agency, the error
should be rectified. To. reject the whole scheme would be .destructive of a
wholesome effort towards nationalisation of bus transport which is generally
undertaken in public interest. In this case denial of equal protection, complai-
ned off flows from State action and has a direct impact on the fundamental
rights of the petitioners: A constructive approach by removing the discrimination
by putting the present petitioners in the same class as those who have enjoyed
favourable treatment by inadvertence on the part of the Regional Transport
Authority will meet the ends of justice. The benefit of this order would be
available, if and only if, the petitioners have valid permits for operating stage
carriage and if such permits are there, they would be without restriction for
operating on that part of the route of each of the petitioners which overlaps with
the notified route but it would be open to the Regional Transport Authority to im-
pose corridor restrictions; so, however, that such restriction does not suffer from
the defect of discrimination which is found to be constitutional. [238A-B-D, E-G]
Ramnath Verma v. State of Rajasthan; [1963] 2 S.C.R. 152, distinguished.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JURISDJGTIQN
Special Leave Petitions
(Civil) Nos. 6150 & 7$39/79.
'
VISHUN DASS v. M.P. (Desai, J.)
235
From the Judgment and Order dated 15-1-79 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in C.W.C. No. I 5/79 and
M.P. No. 12/79 respectively.
AND
Writ Petitions Nos.435, 763 & 813 ·of 1979.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution.)
G. L. Sanghi, S. K. Mehta, P. N. Puri and M. K. Dua for the
Petitioners.
Kameshwar Nath for the Respondent.
S. K. Gambhir for the Respondent-(State)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DESAI, J. Petitioners in this group of petitions under Article
32 of the Constitution and petitions for special leave to appeal were
at the relevant time holders of stage carriage permits granted to
them under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('Act' for short), and were
operating stage carriages on the routes for which permits were
granted. A Scheme No. 50-M was framed and publicised by the
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ('Corporation'
for short), covering certain routes including (i) Rewa-Shahdol; and
(ii) Satna-Ramnagar, which were to be reserved for exclusive opera-
tion· by the Corporation. After objections were invited and heard, the
scheme was finally approved and it came into force on January 20,
1979. On the approved scheme coming into force part of the
routes on which petitioners were operating
overlapped with the
notified routes. Consequently their permits were curtailed prohibiting
them from operating their stage carriages on a portion of their
routes which were overlapping with the notified route.
This action
was challenged by filing writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Cons·
titution in the High Court of MExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.