2010 (7) TMI 1155 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Notification dated April 15, 2000.
2. Status and impact of the 1959 Scheme and 1993 Scheme on the Saharanpur-Delhi route.
3. Authority and scope of the Hearing Authority under Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
4. Applicability of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notification dated April 15, 2000:
The primary issue was whether the Notification dated April 15, 2000, rescinding the earlier Notification dated April 16, 1999, was legally valid. The appellants argued that once the Hearing Authority approved the proposed modification on October 11, 1999, it became a final order of the State Government under Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and could not be rescinded. However, the court found that the Hearing Authority was only empowered to hear objections and not to approve or modify the scheme. Therefore, the order dated October 11, 1999, was not a final order of the State Government. Consequently, the State Government was within its rights to rescind the Notification dated April 16, 1999, under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

2. Status and Impact of the 1959 Scheme and 1993 Scheme on the Saharanpur-Delhi Route:
The Saharanpur-Delhi route was nationalized under the 1959 Scheme, which excluded private operators except for 50 operators whose objections were upheld by the High Court. The 1993 Scheme further nationalized the route, freezing it against all private operators. The court reaffirmed that the 1959 Scheme remained effective and was not superseded by the 1993 Scheme. The appellants' permits, overlapping the Saharanpur-Delhi route, were invalid as they contravened the nationalized status of the route. The court held that the proposed modification in the 1993 Scheme was misconceived and meaningless as it did not seek to modify the 1959 Scheme.

3. Authority and Scope of the Hearing Authority under Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
The court examined whether the Hearing Authority's order dated October 11, 1999, could be considered a final order of the State Government. It was determined that the Hearing Authority was only authorized to hear objections and not to approve or modify the scheme. The principle that "a person who hears must decide" was acknowledged, but the limited authority given to the Hearing Authority could not be expanded based on this principle. Therefore, the Hearing Authority's order had no legal effect, and the State Government retained the power to rescind the Notification dated April 16, 1999.

4. Applicability of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897:
The court held that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which allows an authority to rescind or modify notifications, was applicable. The Notification dated April 15, 2000, rescinding the earlier Notification, was issued in the same manner as the initial Notification, fulfilling the requirements of Section 21. The argument that the draft Notification merged into the order dated October 11, 1999, was rejected. The court found no impediment for the State Government to exercise its power to rescind the Notification dated April 16, 1999.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Notification dated April 15, 2000, rescinding the earlier Notification dated April 16, 1999. The court concluded that the 1959 Scheme and the 1993 Scheme effectively nationalized the Saharanpur-Delhi route, excluding private operators. The Hearing Authority's order dated October 11, 1999, was not a final order of the State Government, and the State Government's power to rescind the Notification was validly exercised under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →