1960 (4) TMI 62 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the scheme violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, because only fourteen out of a total of thirty one routes on which stage carriages were plied for public transport in the Anekal area were covered by the scheme and that even from among the operators on the fourteen routes notified, two operators were left out, thereby making a flagrant discrimination between the operators even on those fourteen routes? Whether by Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Parliament had merely attempted to regulate the procedure for entry by the States into the business of motor transport in the State, and in the absence of legislation expressly undertaken by the State of Mysore in that behalf, that State was incompetent to enter into the arena of motor transport business to the exclusion of private operators? Whether the Chief Minister who heard the objections to the scheme was biased against the petitioners and that in any event, the objections raised by the operators were not considered judicially? Whether the Chief Minister did not give genuine consideration to the objections raised by the operators to the scheme in the light of the conditions prescribed by the Legislature? Held that - It is not clear on the averments made in the petition that the route on which the stage carriages of the two named persons ply are identical; even if the routes on which the stage carriages of these two operators ply overlap the notified route, in the absence of any evidence to show that they had the right to pick up passengers en route, the discrimination alleged cannot be deemed to have been made out. In any event, the expression law as, defined in Art. 13(3)(a) includes any ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification custom, etc., and the scheme framed under s. 68C may properly be regarded as law within the meaning of Art. 19(6) made by the State excluding private operators from notified routes or notified areas, and immune from the attack that it infringes the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(g). The Chief Minister has given. detailed reasons for approving the scheme and has dealt with such of the objections as he says were urged before him. In the last para. of the reasones given, it is stated that the Government have heard all the arguments advanced on behalf of the operators and after giving full consideration-to them, the Government have come to the conclusion that the scheme is necessary in the interest of the public and is accordingly approved subject to the modifications that it shall come into force on May 1, 1959 . In the absence of any evidence controverting these averments, the plea of bias must fail. The argument that the Chief Minister did not give genuine consideration to the objections raised by operators to the scheme in the light of the conditions prescribed has no force. The order of the Chief Minister discusses the questions of law as well as questions of fact. There is no specific reference in the order to certain objections which were raised in the reply filed by the objectors, but we are, on that account, unable to hold that the Chief Minister did not consider those objections. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:

1. Violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
2. Competence of the State of Mysore to enter the motor transport business.
3. Alleged bias of the Chief Minister in approving the scheme.
4. Alleged lack of genuine consideration by the Chief Minister to the objections raised.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Re. 1: Violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution

The petitioners argued that the scheme violated the equal protection clause because it covered only fourteen out of thirty-one routes in the Anekal area and excluded two operators from these fourteen routes, resulting in discrimination. The Court examined the scheme and found that it was approved in relation to fourteen notified routes, not a notified area. The scheme's approval was specific to the routes mentioned in Statement 1, and the exclusion of private operators was limited to these routes. The Court dismissed the argument of discrimination, noting that the two operators allegedly receiving special treatment were notified that they were likely to be affected by the scheme. The Court concluded that there was no evidence of discrimination as the routes of the two operators did not overlap the notified routes with the right to pick up passengers.

Re. 2: Competence of the State of Mysore to enter the motor transport business

The petitioners contended that the State of Mysore lacked the competence to enter the motor transport business without express legislation. The Court referred to Article 298 of the Constitution, which allows the Union and State Governments to carry on any trade or business, subject to legislation by the respective competent legislatures. Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, enacted by Parliament, provided special provisions for State transport undertakings. The Court held that Chapter IVA enabled the State transport undertaking to acquire a monopoly in motor transport business on notified routes, consistent with the scheme. The Court also affirmed that Parliament had the authority to enact laws granting monopolies to State Governments under Entry No. 21 of List III of the Seventh Schedule and that this authority included creating commercial or industrial monopolies.

Re. 3: Alleged bias of the Chief Minister in approving the scheme

The petitioners claimed that the Chief Minister, who approved the scheme, was biased. The Court acknowledged that Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act required the State Government to act judicially in considering objections and approving the scheme. However, the Court emphasized that the Chief Minister, acting in his official capacity, was presumed to be unbiased unless there was reliable evidence to the contrary. The Chief Minister had filed an affidavit stating that he was not biased and had given full consideration to the objections. The Court found no evidence to support the claim of bias and dismissed this plea.

Re. 4: Alleged lack of genuine consideration by the Chief Minister to the objections raised

The petitioners argued that the Chief Minister did not give genuine consideration to their objections. The Court reviewed the Chief Minister's order, which discussed both legal and factual questions. The Court held that the guarantee under Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act was to provide an opportunity to objectors to present their case and be heard. The Court concluded that the Chief Minister had given due consideration to the objections and that the ultimate order was not open to challenge merely because another view could have been taken or detailed reasons were not provided for each objection.

Conclusion:

The Court dismissed the petition with costs, finding no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners. The scheme approved by the State of Mysore was upheld, and the petitioners' claims of violation of the equal protection clause, incompetence of the State, bias, and lack of genuine consideration were rejected.

← Previous Next →