9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the initial publication of proposed schemes under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Empowerment of the Chief Executive Officer to carry out schemes piecemeal. 3. Allegation of personal bias of the Minister in charge of Transport. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Initial Publication of Proposed Schemes under Section 68C: The respondents challenged the validity of the initial publication of the proposed schemes under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, arguing that the publication failed to specify the dates on which the respective schemes would be put into force. They contended that this failure deprived them of an adequate opportunity to file their objections. The High Court rejected this contention, and the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the serial numbers assigned in the proposed schemes published under Section 68C are intended for convenience and do not mandate the order in which the schemes should be implemented. 2. Empowerment of the Chief Executive Officer to Carry Out Schemes Piecemeal: The respondents contended that the impugned order empowered the Chief Executive Officer to carry out the schemes piecemeal, rendering the order invalid. This contention was also rejected by the High Court, and the Supreme Court did not find any reason to differ from this conclusion. The Court held that the relevant provisions of the Act, starting with Section 68C and ending with Section 68F, do not require the schemes to be implemented in the serial order in which they were published. 3. Allegation of Personal Bias of the Minister in Charge of Transport: In one of the writ petitions, a further contention was raised regarding the validity of the impugned order, alleging that the Minister in charge of Transport had a personal bias against one of the petitioners, Ramakotaiah. The High Court found that the Minister was actuated by bias when he approved the schemes, which disqualified him from hearing the objections against the proposed schemes. The Supreme Court examined this plea and the affidavits filed in support and against it. The Court noted that the law requires that a person acting in a quasi-judicial capacity must act objectively, fairly, and impartially. The Court held that if the Minister had indeed asked Ramakotaiah to help him in his election and, upon failing to receive such help, threatened him with consequences, this would introduce a serious infirmity in the impugned order. The Court found that the High Court had rightly concluded that the Minister's affidavits were evasive and unsatisfactory, while the affidavits supporting Ramakotaiah's version were credible. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the Minister's bias had been established, rendering the impugned order invalid. The Court emphasized the importance of the principles of natural justice, stating that the presence of bias disqualified the Minister from dealing with the objections against the proposed schemes. Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed with costs, affirming the High Court's decision that the Minister's bias invalidated the impugned order approving the nationalization schemes. The Court emphasized the necessity for fairness and impartiality in quasi-judicial proceedings.
|
