1964 (1) TMI 64 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the schemes under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
2. Allegations of mala fides against the Chief Minister and the Transport Minister.
3. Compliance with statutory requirements for the particulars in the schemes.
4. Inclusion of inter-State routes in the schemes.
5. Competence of the Regional Transport Authority to issue permits under Section 68-F(1).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Schemes under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:

The appellants challenged the schemes framed under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, nationalizing motor transport in certain areas of the Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. The schemes were alleged to not reflect the Corporation's opinion as required by Section 68-C but were instead directed by the Chief Minister. The Supreme Court found that the schemes were not in conformity with Section 68-C, as they were influenced by the Chief Minister's directions rather than being independently formulated by the Corporation. This was evidenced by the sudden change in the order of districts for nationalization after a conference with the Chief Minister, despite earlier plans and recommendations by the Anantharamakrishnan Committee.

2. Allegations of Mala Fides Against the Chief Minister and the Transport Minister:

The appellants alleged that the Chief Minister acted with mala fides, motivated by political animus against certain transport operators who opposed him in the elections. The Supreme Court found that the allegations against the Chief Minister stood unrebutted due to the lack of denial or counter-affidavits from the Chief Minister or any knowledgeable authority. The Court inferred that the schemes were influenced by the Chief Minister's bias and personal ill-will. However, the Transport Minister's approval of the schemes under Section 68-D(3) was not found to be influenced by the Chief Minister, as there was no evidence to suggest such influence.

3. Compliance with Statutory Requirements for the Particulars in the Schemes:

The appellants argued that the schemes did not conform to statutory requirements under Section 68-C and Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1957, as they specified only the minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips, rather than precise numbers. The Supreme Court agreed that the variations between the maxima and minima in the number of vehicles proposed to be operated on each route were significant enough to contravene Rule 4, thereby violating the statutory requirements.

4. Inclusion of Inter-State Routes in the Schemes:

The appellants contended that the schemes included inter-State transport routes without following the procedure prescribed by the proviso to Section 68-D(3), which requires the previous approval of the Central Government for such schemes. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the routes proposed to be nationalized under the schemes lay wholly within the State, and the right of private operators to play their vehicles beyond the State border was not affected. Therefore, the proviso to Section 68-D(3) was not applicable.

5. Competence of the Regional Transport Authority to Issue Permits under Section 68-F(1):

The appellants argued that the Regional Transport Authority was not competent to issue permits for routes over 100 miles on Trunk Roads, as such permits should be granted by the State Transport Authority under Rule 141 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Act Rules. The Supreme Court held that Section 68-F(1) specifically empowered the Regional Transport Authority to issue permits to the State Transport Undertaking, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Chapter IV or any rules made thereunder. Therefore, the Regional Transport Authority was competent to issue the permits.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court quashed the schemes as they were not in conformity with Section 68-C and the Rules made thereunder. The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were granted a declaration that the schemes were invalid and could not be enforced. The High Court was directed to determine the compensation payable to the appellants for the loss incurred during the period the appeals were pending, as per the undertaking given by the State. The appellants were entitled to their costs in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.