1962 (12) TMI 59 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a draft-scheme under the Act has to be approved as a whole and the procedure of approving a part of the scheme once and another part later is illegal, and therefore, the approval given to the draft-scheme by the Legal Remembrancer does not result in approving the scheme, as required by law. Whether it was not open to the Legal Remembracer to review his order dated May 31, 1962 even after the decision of the High Court, and insofar as the Legal Remembrancer did so in obedience to the order of the High Court he abdicated his own judgment, and the approval therefore after such abdication of his own judgment, is no approval in law. Whether there was discrimination inasmuch as the operators of the twelve partially overlapping routes were left out of the scheme? Held that - in the circumstances of the hearing to be given by the Legal Remembrancer, it is enough if he takes evidence of the witnesses whom the objectors bring before him themselves and if he helps them to secure their attendance by issue of summonses. But the fact that the Rules do not provide for coercive processes does not mean in the special circumstances of the hearing before the Legal Remembrancer that there can be no proper hearing without such coercive processes. We are therefore of opinion that the Legal Remembrancer did give a hearing to the objectors after the order of the High Court and that in the circumstances that hearing was a proper and sufficient hearing. The challenge therefore to the validity of the scheme as published on June 16, 1962, on this ground must be rejected. No ground to uphold the plea of discrimination in the present case, for routes completely covered by the route taken over stand on a different footing from the routes only partially covered. The contention therefore that the final scheme as published on August 31, 1962 is bad because it discriminates in this manner, must be rejected. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Approval of the draft scheme as a whole.
2. Review of the Legal Remembrancer's order.
3. Requirement of a fresh hearing ab initio.
4. Proper hearing and compelling attendance of witnesses.
5. Discrimination against permit-holders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Re. (1) & (2): Approval of the Draft Scheme as a Whole and Review of the Legal Remembrancer's Order

The petitioners contended that a draft scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act must be approved as a whole and that the procedure of approving a part of the scheme once and another part later is illegal. They also argued that the Legal Remembrancer had no authority to review his order dated May 31, 1962, even after the High Court's decision.

The court clarified that the draft scheme was meant to take over the Jodhpur-Bilara-Beawar-Ajmer route and the three completely overlapping routes. The twelve partially overlapping routes were not included in the draft scheme. The confusion arose because of the objections and the Roadways' response, which led the Legal Remembrancer to consider these partially overlapping routes initially. The High Court set aside the final scheme published on June 16, 1962, and directed the Legal Remembrancer to reconsider the matter. The court held that the Legal Remembrancer did not abdicate his judgment and that his decision on August 17, 1962, was a fresh decision, not a review. Therefore, the approval given to the draft scheme was of the scheme as a whole, and the contention that only part of the scheme was approved was rejected.

Re. (3) & (4): Requirement of a Fresh Hearing Ab Initio and Proper Hearing

The petitioners argued that the Legal Remembrancer should have given a fresh hearing ab initio after the High Court set aside the final scheme. They also contended that the absence of provisions for compelling the attendance of witnesses meant there was no proper hearing.

The court noted that the Legal Remembrancer did give a hearing to the objectors after the High Court's order. The evidence produced earlier was still valid and could be considered. The Legal Remembrancer was not required to take fresh evidence as no new issues arose. The court emphasized that the proceedings before the Legal Remembrancer, though quasi-judicial, were not exactly like court proceedings. The absence of coercive processes for compelling witness attendance did not invalidate the hearing. The court concluded that the hearing given by the Legal Remembrancer was proper and sufficient, and the challenge to the validity of the scheme on this ground was rejected.

Re. (5): Discrimination Against Permit-Holders

The petitioners claimed discrimination because the twelve partially overlapping routes were not affected by the scheme, while the three completely overlapping routes were excluded.

The court explained that under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is permissible to take over any area or route to the complete or partial exclusion of other persons. The State Government could exclude those plying completely on the route taken over. The court found an obvious distinction between routes completely covered by the route taken over and those partially covered. It noted that steps had been taken to exclude permit-holders on partially overlapping routes since the scheme's approval. The court concluded that there was no discrimination, as the routes completely covered by the route taken over stood on a different footing from the partially covered routes. The contention of discrimination was rejected.

Conclusion:

The petition was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made. The court upheld the validity of the scheme as finally published on August 31, 1962, and rejected all the grounds of challenge raised by the petitioners.

← Previous Next →