1961 (12) TMI 86 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the nationalization scheme initiated by the State Government.
2. Legality of the objections and approval process under Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. Curtailment of the period of renewal by the Regional Transport Authority.
4. Application of mind by the Regional Transport Authority in dealing with the renewal application.
5. Requirement of permits for State-owned buses under the nationalization scheme.
6. Jurisdiction of the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority under Section 68F(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Nationalization Scheme Initiated by the State Government:
The Court examined whether the State Government could initiate a nationalization scheme under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held that the State transport undertaking, as defined under Section 68A(b), includes an undertaking run by the State Government. Therefore, the opinion formed by the State Government in initiating the scheme is valid. The Court further emphasized that the statutory authority created is distinct from the State Government, but in practice, the State Government can form a department to manage the undertaking and initiate schemes without violating natural justice principles.

2. Legality of the Objections and Approval Process Under Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act:
The appellant contended that the scheme was invalid because the objections were heard and approved by the Joint Secretary, Judicial Department, who was not lawfully authorized. The Court noted that this issue was not raised in the initial petition or during the High Court proceedings. According to Rule 7 of the State Land Transport Services Development Rules 1958, the Joint Secretary could lawfully consider objections and approve the scheme. Since the scheme was duly published under Section 68D(3), the statutory consequences under Section 68F must follow, making the scheme valid.

3. Curtailment of the Period of Renewal by the Regional Transport Authority:
The appellant argued that the Regional Transport Authority acted illegally in curtailing the renewal period of his permit. The Court held that the Regional Transport Authority had no discretion in the matter as the scheme itself restricted the appellant's rights. The Authority's order was purely consequential to the scheme, and if the scheme is valid, the orders based on it are also valid.

4. Application of Mind by the Regional Transport Authority in Dealing with the Renewal Application:
The appellant claimed that the Regional Transport Authority did not apply its mind and mechanically followed the scheme's provisions. The Court found that the Authority's actions were dictated by the scheme, and therefore, it had no independent discretion. The Authority's duty was merely to enforce the scheme, making its actions valid.

5. Requirement of Permits for State-Owned Buses Under the Nationalization Scheme:
The appellant contended that State-owned buses should obtain permits under Section 68F(1) of the Act. The Court ruled that the appellant, having lost the right to ply his vehicles due to the valid cancellation of his permit, could not challenge the State Transport Undertaking's right to ply buses without permits. The Court also noted that a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution could not be maintained unless a fundamental right was infringed, which was not the case here.

6. Jurisdiction of the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority Under Section 68F(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act:
The appellant argued that the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to issue orders under Section 68F(2). The Court held that the orders under Sections 68F(2)(a) and (b) were administrative, not quasi-judicial, and could be issued by the Secretary on behalf of the Authority. Since the order was administrative, the delegation of power was valid.

Conclusion:
The appeal and the petitions were dismissed with costs, upholding the validity of the nationalization scheme, the legality of the objections and approval process, the actions of the Regional Transport Authority, and the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority.