1962 (4) TMI 127 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Legal Remembrancer's decision-making process.
2. Opportunity to lead evidence.
3. Partial exclusion of private operators.
4. Alleged discrimination in permit cancellations.
5. Overlapping route permits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Legal Remembrancer's Decision-Making Process:
The appellants contended that the Legal Remembrancer erred by believing he could not reject the draft schemes in their entirety, based on an earlier Rajasthan High Court decision. This Court, however, clarified that the Legal Remembrancer had the discretion to reject the draft schemes or take evidence if necessary. Despite this, the High Court found that the Legal Remembrancer had considered objections in detail and only modified the schemes where necessary, indicating a thorough review process.

2. Opportunity to Lead Evidence:
The appellants argued they were denied a chance to present evidence to support their objections. However, it was noted that the appellants never formally requested to lead evidence before the Legal Remembrancer. The High Court determined that the Legal Remembrancer did not shut out evidence, and the objections raised did not necessitate evidence as they were of a general nature. The Supreme Court concurred, stating the appellants did not demonstrate a genuine desire to produce evidence and were merely leveraging the precedent set in Malik Ram's case.

3. Partial Exclusion of Private Operators:
The appellants challenged the legality of making permits ineffective for overlapping routes. The Court upheld this practice, stating it amounted to partial exclusion permissible under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court emphasized that making permits ineffective for overlapping parts was justified and did not inherently violate any statutory provisions.

4. Alleged Discrimination in Permit Cancellations:
The appellants claimed discrimination between those whose permits were canceled and those made ineffective, arguing it resulted in unequal compensation. The Court dismissed this argument, noting that permit holders whose permits were made ineffective could still operate on overlapping routes, potentially benefiting them more than receiving compensation. Any perceived discrimination was due to oversight, which the State was prepared to rectify, negating claims of deliberate or conscious discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.

5. Overlapping Route Permits:
The appellants argued that some permits neither canceled nor made ineffective on overlapping routes indicated discrimination. The State admitted this was an oversight and expressed readiness to correct it post the stay order from the Court. The Court accepted this explanation, finding no evidence of deliberate favoritism. Additionally, the issue of permit cancellations on the Ajmer-Kotah route depended on the outcome of the Jaipur-Kotah scheme's re-hearing, thus no immediate relief was granted.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the Legal Remembrancer's approval of the schemes was not vitiated by any procedural errors or discriminatory practices. The appellants' claims lacked substantive evidence, and the Court found no grounds to overturn the High Court's decision. The appeals were dismissed with costs.