9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (4) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions to these five draft schemes. Objections were led by the Stage carriage permit- holders who were plying on these five routes. The objections with reference to the three routes with 'which these appeals are concerned were heard on December 7 and 14, 1961) and the draft schemes were approved by the Legal Remembrance on December 14 and 15, 1960, with slight modifications. It appears further that the objectors relating to Jaipur- Ajmer and Jaipur-Kotah routes, which were among the five schemes, published as above, objected to these two schemes on various grounds and prayed that they should be given an opportunity to show that the two draft-schemes did Dot provide an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service and should therefore be not approved and also prayed that evidence might be taken in support of their contentions. One of the permit holders on the Jaipur Ajmer route was Malik Ram who had contended that the draft-scheme should be rejected in its entirety and ad desired to lead evidence for that purpose. The Legal Remembrancer, however, held on the basis of an earlier decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Chandar Bhan v. The State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that there was nothing to indicate that the appellants desired to lead evidence in support of their case that the draft-schemes should be totally rejected. It was contended before the High Court that it was useless for the appellants to make any application for the taking if evidence because it would in any case have been rejected an the Legal Remembrancer had already taken the view that be could not reject the scheme as a whole. The High Court was however not impressed with this argument and held that the order of the Legal Remembrancer did not show that he thought that the draft scheme should be totally rejected but felt unable to do so because of the decision of the High Court in Chander Bhan's case ((1961) Raj Law Weekly 47). On the other hand, the High Court was of the view that the Legal Remembrancer considered the objections raised before him in detail and his order showed that he only thought that the schemes should be modified in part and were otherwise fit for approval. The appellants then applied to the High Court for certificates which were granted; and that is how the matter has come up before us. The main co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncer. It was only after, the decision in Malik Ram's case (1) that applications were filed taking advantage of that decision and pointing out that the wrong approach of the Legal Remembrancerin holding that it was not open to him to reject the draft-scheme in its entirety had resulted in the appellant's not getting an effective hearing., But it does not seem to have been suggested even at that (except in one case) that the appellants had desired to lead evidence before the Legal Remembrancer and he bad abut them out. Nor was it shown at that stage what evidence the appellants could produce in support of their objections if an opportunity had been given to them. Lastly even this Court the appellants have not indicated what evidence they could produce in support of the objections raised by them. It seems to us therefore that the appellants never really desired to produce evidence in order to establish that the schemes as a whole should be rejected and that they put forward the contention that they would have produced evidence if given an opportunity to do so, merely taking advantage of the decision of this Court in Malik Ram's case ((1962) 1 S.C.R. 978). Further it seems ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been raised or some of the, direct services has to be cut down where their routes overlapped with the routes in the three draft-schemes would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the draft-schemes were not in conformity with the requirements of S. 680. The contention therefore based on the judgment of this Court in Malik Ram's case ([1962] 1 S.C.R. 978) must on the facts and circumstances of these appeals be rejected. Besides this main objection, three subsidiary points have been raised on behalf of the appellants. It appears that in some cases the objectors served routes which overlapped the three routes which have been taken over. In these cases what has been done is that in some cases the permits of the objectors have been cancelled with respect to the overlapping part of the routes while in other cases the objectors are allowed to ply even on the overlapping part but they have been forbidden to pick up passengers on the overlapping part for destinations within the overlapping part. This latter method is called making the permits ineffective for the. overlapping part. Now the grievance of those whose permits have thus been rendered ineffective for the overlapping ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for discrimination under Art. 14 of the Constitution. In the present appeals no such cage has been made out on the facts and therefore we must reject this argument based upon discrimination. Secondly, it is urged that in the case of some persons, the permits have neither been cancelled nor made ineffective over the overlapping route and this amounts to discrimination. The, reply of the State to this contention is that it was by oversight that permits of certain permit-holders on the overlapping routes have not been cancelled or made ineffective and it is further said that the State would have corrected this oversight but for the stay order obtained from this Court. Discrimination envisaged under Art. 14 is conscious discrimination and a discrimination arising out of oversight is no discrimination at all. In the present case the discrimination has resulted because of an oversight which the State is prepared to rectify. It is not the case of the appellants that these few permit-holders are being favored deliberately for ulterior reasons. We therefore accept the reply of the State that a few permit-holders on the overlapping route have been left out by oversight and that their permi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
