9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (4) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port Authority, Jaipur, dated December 16/17, 1958. In August, 1960, the State Government promulgated rules under s. 68-1 of the Act, called the Rajasthan State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called the Rules). The Rules were framed for carrying out the purposes of Chap. IV-A of the Act and provided inter alia for framing of schemes, hearing of objections, determination and payment of compensation, and other incidental matters. A draft scheme was published on September 7, 1960, for taking over the Jaipur-Ajmer route. The appellant made objections to the draft scheme within the time allowed by the notification thereof. The State Government appointed the Legal Remembrancer to hear and decide the objections unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the observation that he was bound hand and foot by the decision of the Rajasthan High Court and if there was anything wrong in the interpretation given by the High Court the remedy lay elsewhere. Thereafter the officer gave a hearing to the appellant in the sense that he heard arguments on behalf of the appellant and approved the draft scheme by his order dated December 7, 1960. The approved scheme was then published on December 12,1960. On January 9, 1961, the Regional Transport Authority informed the appellant that his permit was cancelled, as from January 26, 1961, or such later date from which the buses of Rajasthan State Roadways begin to operate on the above-mentioned route. In the meantime, the appellant unsuccessfully moved th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is section does not justify what it called the cancellation of the scheme. We are of the opinion that this view is not correct. What s. 68-D(2) provides is that after hearing the parties, the State Government may approve or modify the draft scheme. This in our opinion clearly implies that the authority which has to approve or modify the scheme has the power also, if it so thinks fit, not to approve the scheme at all. What is before the. State Government under s. 68-D (2) is a draft scheme. That sub-section provides that the State Government may approve or modify the scheme; that does not mean that the State Government is bound to approve the scheme with or without modifications. An authority to which power has been given to approve or modif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Chap. IV-A. The officer therefore was wrong in holding that he had no power to reject the scheme in the sense that he could withhold approval of it altogether, though we may add that he came to that conclusion because of the earlier decision of the Rajasthan High Court. As for r. 7(6) of the Rules it is in similar terms as s. 68- D(2) and must therefore mean what we have said above with respect to s. 68-D(2). If, however, by the use of the word "shall" in r. 7(6) in place of the word "may" which appears in s. 68-D(2) the intention is to curtail the power of the officer hearing the objections, the rule would be bad as going beyond what is provided in s. 68-D(2). But we do not think that the use of the word "shall" in r. 7(6) makes any dif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rials to come to that conclusion.. A hearing before a quasi-judicial authority does not merely mean an argument; it may in proper cases include the taking of evidence, both oral and documentary. It seems to us that in the circumstances of the provision contained in s. 68- D(2) and the purpose of the hearing thereunder, taking of evidence, whether oral or documentary, that maybe desired to be produced by either party, may be necessary before the State Government can arrive at a just conclusion with respect to the objections to the draft scheme. We cannot therefore agree with the officer that there is no warrant for taking any evidence at all at a hearing under s. 68- D(2). It seems to us, considering the nature of the objections and the purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence either documentary or oral during a hearing under s. 68-D(2). In view of what we have said above the approach of the officer in this case was wrong on both the points. He was wrong in his view that it was not open to him to reject the scheme in toto and withhold approval altogether. He was also wrong in the view that it was not open to him to take evidence, whether oral or documentary, though of course, as we have said above the control on this evidence must be in him. The result of this wrong approach to our mind has certainly been that the appellant did not get a hearing to which he was entitled under s. 68.D(2). In the circumstances we must hold that the approval of the scheme was without a proper hearing under s. 68-D(2), which, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
