9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the nationalization policy of passenger bus transport in Tamil Nadu. 2. Constitutionality of Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, as amended by Madras Act 18 of 1968. 3. Alleged violation of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 4. Procedural fairness and potential bias in the implementation of the nationalization scheme. 5. Coordination and integration of various nationalization schemes. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Nationalization Policy: The judgment discusses the policy of nationalization of passenger bus transport in Tamil Nadu, initiated by the Government Order dated June 7, 1967. The policy aimed to nationalize all routes of 75 miles and above, routes radiating or terminating in Madras City, and all routes in the Kanvakungi District as the permits of private operators expired. A committee was constituted to implement this decision, and a draft scheme was prepared and published under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939. The High Court initially struck down the draft scheme, leading to subsequent amendments and the promulgation of new schemes. 2. Constitutionality of Chapter IV-A: The appellants challenged the constitutionality of Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, as amended by Madras Act 18 of 1968. The High Court upheld the validity of these provisions, and this decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. State of Madras. The Court held that the State Transport Undertaking, being a Department of the State Government, had the necessary authority to form the required opinion and take action under Section 68-C of the Act. The validity of the Madras Act 18 of 1968 was upheld, and the Court found no need to decide on the constitutionality of the provisions while addressing the validity of the impugned scheme. 3. Alleged Violation of Fundamental Rights: The appellants argued that Chapter IV-A of the Act violated their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. They claimed that the permit issued under the Act constituted property, and the right to apply for or renew a permit was a property right. The High Court, however, held that a route permit is property, but its renewal is not a matter of right. The Court found no infringement of fundamental rights, as the renewal of permits was subject to the discretion of the transport authority, and the motor vehicle itself was not taken away by the Government. 4. Procedural Fairness and Potential Bias: The appellants contended that the Secretary, Home Department, who was involved in the policy decision and later heard objections under Section 68-D, acted as a judge in his own cause, leading to potential bias. The Court referred to previous decisions, including Dosa Satyanarayanamurthy v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, and concluded that mere participation in policy decisions did not disqualify the Secretary from hearing objections. The Court found no evidence of bias or failure to discharge duties in a judicial manner. 5. Coordination and Integration of Schemes: The appellants argued that the nationalization schemes lacked proper coordination and integration. They claimed that the schemes should have been implemented in a phased and coordinated manner. The Court, however, held that the schemes conformed to the requirements of Section 68-C, which allowed for the nationalization of routes as and when permits expired. The Court found no requirement for further conditions of coordination and integration beyond what was stipulated in the Act. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the nationalization policy and the constitutionality of Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, as amended by Madras Act 18 of 1968. The Court found no violation of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) and concluded that the procedural fairness and coordination of the schemes were in accordance with the law. The appeals were dismissed without any order as to costs.
|
