BIRAJMOHAN DAS GUPTA AND JAGATPUR MOTOR ASSOCIATION CUTTACK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petition challenge the validity of a scheme of road transport service approved by the Government of Orissa under S. 68-D (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, No. IV of 1939 (herein after called the Act). A large number of grounds have been raised in the petitions but we are now concerned with only six points urged on behalf of the petitioners and we shall deal with only those points. No arguments were addressed on the other points raised in the petitions and it is therefore not necessary to set them out. The six points which have been raised before us are these:-

(2.) We propose to take these points one by one.

(3.) Re. 1. - The contention of the petitioner is that the minister heard the objections on September 2l, l960 and passed his orders approving the scheme on September 22, 1960. The notice however issued to the petitioner of the date of hearing was receipted by him on September 23, 1960, and as such as there was no opportunity for the petitioner to get a hearing before the minister and consequently the Scheme which was approved in violations of S. 68-D (2) and Rule 8 was invalid. It appears that the draft scheme was published on July 29, l960. Objections were invited from the operators and members of the public thereto. The petitioner filed his objections on August 24, 1960. The date which was originally fixed for hearing of objections was September l6, l960 and it is not disputed that the notice of that date was given to all objectors as required by S. 68-D (2) and the Rules. The petitioner, however, did not appear on September 16, 1960, which was the first date of hearing. Many other objectors appeared on that date and prayed for time. Consequently the hearing was adjourned to September 21. As however the petitioner was absent a fresh notice was sent to him as a matter of abundant caution. That notice could not be delivered to him before September 21, 1960, as he was absent from his address and he was actually served on September 23, 1960. The petitioner's complaint therefore is that as he was not served with notice about the hearing on September 21, 1960, there was no compliance with S. 68-D (2) and the Rules framed in that connection under Chap. IV-A.