- (1.)THESE are five writ applications under Art. 226 of the Constitution by which the validity of the Rules called the Rajasthan State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1959) has been challenged. As the questions of law raised by these petitions are common, we propose to dispose of them by a single judgment.
(2.)IT is necessary to state a few salient facts in order to understand the contentions raised in these writ petitions. The petitioners are the several holders of certain stage carriage permits on certain routes, and it is sufficient to state for our present purposes that these permits have not yet expired and would be current for some time to come. In exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 68-I of the Motor Vehicles Act (No. IV) of 1939 (hereinafter called the Act) under Chapter iva thereof, which was introduced into the Act for the first time by Act No. 100 of 1956, the State Government published a draft of the impugned Rules by a notification in the State Gazette dated the 9th December, 1959, in compliance with Sub-section (1) of Section 133 of the Act. This notification was issued, to use its own language, "for the information of all persons likely to be affected thereby", and notice was thereby given that the said draft would be taken into consideration on or after the expiry of seven days from the date of publication of that notice in the Official Gazette. It was further notified that
"any objection or suggestion which may be received from any person in respect of the said draft before the specified period will be considered fey the State Government".
(See Appendix II ). It is not disputed that in accordance with this notification, these draft rules were finalised on the 17th December, 1959, and published in the State gazette of the same date, and this is how these rules came into force at once. By these Rules, a State Transport Undertaking in the name of "the Rajasthan State roadways" has been created and powers have been given to the General Manager thereof who is to be appointed by the State to the State Transport Undertaking to prepare a scheme in relation to such areas or routes as in its opinion should be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking whether to the exclusion, complete or partial of other persons or otherwise, where the said Undertaking is of opinion that for the purpose of providing efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road service, it is necessary in the public interest to do so. Immediately thereafter, the State Transport Undertaking framed schemes for the various areas or routes in question which were sought to be operated hereafter by it or the Rajasthan State Roadways. These schemes were published in the State gazette on various dates in the mouth of December, 1959. Consequently, the petitioners who are the existing bus-operators on these routes instituted the present writ applications challenging the validity of the Rules of 1959 and praying that the said Rules be declared to be ultra vires and inoperative. It was also prayed that a writ of prohibition be issued against the Government of Rajasthan and the Secretary to the Government, Law and Judicial Department (the latter being the authority appointed under the Rules to hear the objections against the various schemes) not to consider the various schemes or to give effect to them. By an interim order of this Court, the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, law and Judicial Department, was restrained from deciding the objections raised by the petitioners with the result that the schemes have yet to be considered and finalised. The principal grievances of the petitioners is that the Rules of 1959 under which the various schemes for the nationalisation of road transport service on the routes or areas in question have been prepared are illegal inasmuch as according to this petitioners although a pretence of giving some time for raising objections to the draft rules by the persons concerned was made, no real opportunity or sufficient time for the said purpose was at all furnished. The following facts are relied on in tills connection. The draft rules were published in the State Gazette for the first time on the 9th December, 1959, and just seven days' time was allowed for the filing of the objections or suggestions, and the rules were to be finalised after the consideration of these by the State Government. The contention of the petitioners is that the relevant Gazette containing the said draft rules was not despatched from the Government Press, Jaipur, before the 14th or 15th December, 1959, so that it was received by the office of the president of the Rajasthan Bus-owners Association at Jodhpur on the 16th december, 1959, and by the Secretary of the Ajmer-Bhilwara Bus-owners association, Bhilwara, on the 15th December, 1959. It is also submitted in this connection that the Gazette is subscribed by a number of advocates and other persons in Ajmer and the Ajmer-Jaipur route is one of the routes to be nationalised, and the particular copy of the Gazette containing the draft rules was received in Ajmer on the 15th as 16th December, 1959, and not before. These allegations are supported by their respective affidavits by the petitioners, and it is strenuously contended that it was a virtual impossibility for the bus operators who were interested in the framing of the rules and were to be affected by them to submit any objections or suggestions against the draft rules for the consideration of the Government within the time allowed. It is further alleged in this connection that the petitioner or petitioners in writ Nos. 36, 45 and 46 sent telegrams to the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan in the Transport department, Jaipur, complaining that the draft rules published in the Rajasthan state Gazette dated the 9th December had been received as late as the 16th december and that it was impossible to submit any objections before the specified period, and, therefore, sufficient time should be allowed for preparing objections and submitting them to the State Government. But all this was of no avail and the draft rules, no objections having apparently been received, were finalised as they were, and published in the official gazette on the 17th December, 1959. On these facts, it is contended that the procedure followed in the finalisation of the rules was altogether illegal and unjust, and, therefore, the rules arc of no effect. The petitioners have also questioned the validity of certain specific rules, and the constitutionality of Section 23 (5) of the General Clauses Act (No. X) of 1897 in this connection.
(3.)THESE applications have been resisted by the State. The submission of the State is that, according to law, it was not at all necessary to invite any objections before making the rules and that the only requirement was that the Rules should have been pre-published in accordance with the provisions of Section 133 of the Act and, that, in fact, was done, the Rules having been actually finalised after the expiry of a week from the date of the pre-publication of the draft rules. It was further contended in this connection that under Section 23 (5) of the general Clauses Act which was quite explicit and binding on all courts, once the rules, which were certainly purported to have been made in exercise of the power to make them after previous publication, were published in the official Gazette, that must be held to be conclusive proof that the rules were duly made and thereafter they could not be questioned at all. It is also contended before us that the Rules did not affect the bus operators at all and that they can have no legitimate grievance if they were finalised in the manner done. It was further contended that it was a matter for the Government to determine how much time should have been given by it for the submission of objections or suggestions and that it was hardly for the court to go into this question and that in any case the time given was perfectly adequate. It was also submitted in this connection that the introduction of Chapter IVA in the Act was a sufficient notice to everybody concerned, and that the Rules were merely procedural. Developing the argument on the same lines, it was further contended that Section 68-B of the Act of 1939 had an overriding effect and, therefore, the Rules as framed could not be refused effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter IVA of the Act or in any other law for the time being in force. For all the reasons mentioned above therefore it was equally strenuously contended on behalf of the State that the grievance raised by the petitioners was without any substance, and the writ applications deserved to be dismissed.
;