9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (12) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of summonses. But the fact that the Rules do not provide for coercive processes does not mean in the special circumstances of the hearing before the Legal Remembrancer that there can be no proper hearing without such coercive processes. We are therefore of opinion that the Legal Remembrancer did give a hearing to the objectors after the order of the High Court and that in the circumstances that hearing was a proper and sufficient hearing. The challenge therefore to the validity of the scheme as published on June 16, 1962, on this ground must be rejected. No ground to uphold the plea of discrimination in the present case, for routes completely covered by the route taken over stand on a different footing from the routes only partially covered. The contention therefore that the final scheme as published on August 31, 1962 is bad because it discriminates in this manner, must be rejected. Appeal dismissed. - W.P.(C) 142 OF 1962 - - - Dated:- 14-12-1962 - P. BHUVNESHWAR SINHA, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA, J.C. SHAH, JJ. JUDGMENT This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenges the constitutionality of a scheme finalised under s. 68D (3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e permits on these twelve routes also insofar as they overlapped the route to be taken over, though these, routes were not mentioned in the draft-scheme like the three routes which were completely covered by the Jodhpur-Bilara-Beawar-Ajmer route and no notice was apparently given to the seventy-two permit- holders on these twelve partially over-lapping routes. The Legal Remembrancer held that even though these routes were not specified in the draft-scheme and no notice had been given to the permit-holders thereof, it was open to him to render the permits ineffective with respect to these routesalso and proceeded to pass orders accordingly. Thereupon five writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Rajasthan by the permit-holders on the three routes which had been notified in the draftscheme as well as by some of the permit-holders of the twelve partially overlapping routes which had not been notified but which had been affected by the order of the Legal Remembrancer. Two main points were urged before the High Court in support of the cbchallenge to the validity of the scheme as finally published on June 16, 1962. In the first place, it was urged that the State Government when pub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... published on August 31, 1962, and the present petition is directed against that decision. The decision of the Legal Remembrancer is being challenged before us on the following grounds:- (1)A draft-scheme under the Act has to be approved as a whole and the procedure of approving a part of the scheme once and another part later is illegal, and therefore, the approval given to the draft-scheme by the Legal Remembrancer does not result in approving the scheme, as required by law. (2)It was not open to the Legal Remembracer to review his order dated May 31, 1962 even after the decision of the High Court, and insofar as the Legal Remembrancer did so in obedience to the order of the High Court he abdicated his own judgment, and the approval therefore after such abdication of his own judgment, is no approval in law. (3)As the scheme as published on June 16, 1962 was set aside by the High Court, it was the duty of the Legal Remembrancer to give a fresh hearing ab initio to the objectors which he did not do, and therefore the approval accorded by him to the draft-scheme after the judgment of the High Court is no approval in law. (4)Hearing requires taking of evidence; but as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmini of the overlapping routes were not on this road, though a part of the route fell on this road. Rule 3 of the Rules provides for indi- cating all such overlapping routes as are intended to be affected and the draft scheme in the present case only indicated three routes which were completely on this road namely, Jodhpur-Bilara, Bilara-Beawar, and Beawar-Ajmer, and was not concerned at all with the other overlapping routes, where overlapping was only partial. It was therefore in our opinion unnecessary to bring in the question of the twelve partially overlapping routes when objections to this draft scheme were being considered. There is no doubt that the Roadways was also responsible for the introduction of this confusion for it seems to have been urged on its behalf, when the objections were considered on the first occasion, that these partially overlapping routes were also meant to be covered by the draft scheme, even though they were not mentioned in the draft scheme as required by r. 3 of the Rules and no notice had been issued to the permitholders of those routes. The petitioners also raised a point with respect to these overlapping routes, and that is how on the first occa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces be called an approval of a part of the scheme. Nor do we think that there is any force in the contention that the Legal Remembrancer abdicated his judgment when going into the question on the second occasion after the judgment of the High Court. The order of the Legal Remembrancer dated August 17, 1962 shows that he reconsidered the entire matter after hearing further arguments and there can be no doubt that he was exercising his own judgment when he finally decided to approve the draft scheme with certain modification. What the Legal Remembrancer has done in this case is to reappraise the evidence in the light of the legal position indicated by the High Court. Nor do we think that there is any substance in the argument that the order of the Legal Remembrancer dated August 17, 1962, is a review of his earlier order dated May 31, 1962. No question of review of that order arises for that order was in effect set aside when the High Court set aside the final scheme as published on June 16, 1962. It is true that publication made certain further modifications into the scheme as approved by the Legal Remembrancer but that in our opinion makes no difference to the fact that the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valid. It is not disputed that the Legal Remembrancer did give a hearing to the objectors after the order of the High Court. What is urged however is that the objectors should have been allowed to give evidence afresh before the Legal Remembrancer finally disposed of the objections. We are of opinion that though the result of the order of the High Court was to set aside the order of the Legal Remembracer dated May 31, 1962, it cannot be said that the order of the High Court wiped out the evidence which the objectors had given before the Legal Remembrancer on the first occasion. We have already mentioned the two grounds on which the High Court set aside the final scheme as published on June 16, 1962, and those grounds had nothing to do with the evidence which was already produced. In our opinion, it was open to the Legal Remembrancer to take that evidence into account and it was not necessary that evidence should be given again, particularly when no fresh issues arose; nor was the Legal Remembrancer bound to take fresh evidence simply because the final scheme as published on June 16, 1962 had been set aside on account of certain technical and Legal defects. When the objectors had be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... road. In some cases neither termini is on this road and only a part of the route overlaps this road. The argument is that as the permit-holders on these partially overlapping routes have not been touched by the scheme, there is discrimination inasmuch as the permit-holders on the three routes which were totally overlapping the route which was being taken over, have been completely excluded. We do not think that this amounts to discrimination. It may be pointed out that under s. 68C it is open to take over any area or route to the complete or partial exclusion of other persons. Therefore, it was open to the State Government to take over this route only and exclude those who may be plying completely on this route or parts thereof and unless it can be shown that others who are similarly situated have -not been excluded from the scheme there can be no question of discrimination. In our opinion it cannot be said that-those permit-holders whose routes were completely covered by the route taken over stand on the same footing as those whose routes were only partially covered by the route taken over. It may very well have been considered that in the first instance only those permit-holders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
