1966 (8) TMI 77 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the proceedings under the notification dated 24th January 1962.
2. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Competence of the State Government to issue specific directions for permits.
4. Preliminary objection regarding the renewal of permits.
5. Requirement of following the procedure under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act for issuing permits.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Proceedings under the Notification Dated 24th January 1962:

The petitioners, bus operators on the Jaipur-Sikar route, challenged the legality of the proceedings taken by the Home Secretary under the notification dated 24th January 1962. They argued that the permits granted to the respondents to ply buses on the Jaipur-Bikaner route were issued without giving them an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The State Government countered that notices were sent to all objectors, but the petitioners avoided service. The court found that the petitioners were not personally served with notices but were represented by their union president, Bhag Singh, who engaged a pleader to represent them. Thus, the court concluded that the petitioners' cause was not prejudiced for want of notice.

2. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:

The petitioners claimed that the instructions were issued ex parte, violating principles of natural justice. The court noted that although the petitioners were not personally served with notices, their union president represented them. Furthermore, the petitioners had the opportunity to present their objections at the State Transport Authority meeting on 13th January 1962 but chose to seek an adjournment instead. The court held that the petitioners had ample opportunity to be heard and thus, there was no violation of natural justice.

3. Competence of the State Government to Issue Specific Directions for Permits:

The petitioners argued that the State Government was not competent to issue specific directions for issuing permits to certain individuals, as it violated Sections 47 and 57 of the Act. The court examined the provisions of Section 43(1)(iii) and concluded that the State Government could issue directions regarding the grant of permits for alternative routes to displaced operators. The court found that the procedure followed by the State Government, including consulting the State Transport Authority and giving affected parties an opportunity to be heard, complied with the legal requirements.

4. Preliminary Objection Regarding the Renewal of Permits:

A preliminary objection was raised that the permits had been renewed, making the petition infructuous. The petitioners contended that renewal is a continuation of the old permits, and if the old permits are declared illegal, the renewed permits would also be invalid. The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment stating that a renewal is a continuation of the original permit. Therefore, if the original permits are set aside, the renewed permits would also be invalid. The court found no force in the preliminary objection.

5. Requirement of Following the Procedure under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act for Issuing Permits:

The petitioners contended that the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) must follow the procedure laid down in Chapter IV of the Act for granting permits, even if acting under directions from the State Government. The court examined the provisions of Chapter IV-A and Section 43(1)(iii) and concluded that the RTA acts in an administrative capacity when issuing permits under State Government directions for displaced operators. The court held that the RTA need not follow the Chapter IV procedure for such permits, as the directions issued under Section 43(1)(iii) already consider objections from affected parties.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ application, finding no merit in the petitioners' claims. The procedures followed by the State Government and the RTA were deemed compliant with the legal requirements, and the permits issued to the respondents were held to be valid and legal.