MOR MODERN COOPERATIVE TRANSPORT SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2002-7-1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on July 09,2002

MOR MODERN COOPERATIVE TRANSPORT SOCIETY LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

RAMAN SAHANI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-4-33] [REFERRED TO]
PARVEEN KUMAR VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2018-2-141] [REFERRED TO]
A.R. KUMAAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2014-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
ENERGY WATCHDOG VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-11-5] [REFERRED TO]
JODHPUR CITY BUS OWNERS UNION VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN DAS VS. DEOJI MAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
C R NEELAKANDAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2016-4-120] [REFERRED TO]
BODHISATWA SAMAJ SEVA SANSTHAN U.P. AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-11-49] [REFERRED TO]
P G NARAYANAN VS. COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2005-10-53] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHAM PREMJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2020-2-705] [REFERRED TO]
P.NAVEEN KUMAR REDDY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2022-9-126] [REFERRED TO]
ASHISH KUMAR CHATURVEDI VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2018-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA SHEKHAR KARGETI VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2018-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA JUGRAN VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2015-12-76] [REFERRED]
D SHIVA PRASAD VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2009-9-74] [REFERRED TO]
B. RADHAKRISHNA MENON VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-6-211] [REFERRED TO]
B. RADHAKRISHNA MENON VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-6-211] [REFERRED TO]
B. MENGHANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2014-3-31] [REFERRED TO]
K.D. PRATHAPAN VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-7-208] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY PRAKASH PRADHAN VS. STATE OF U.P. THR THE PRIN. SECY. P.W.D. LKO & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-23] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH PANDEY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-3-106] [REFERRED TO]
F D C LIMITED VS. FEDERATION OF MEDICAL REPRESENTATIVES ASSOCIATION INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-1-61] [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT VS. GUJARAT KISHAN MAZDOOR PANCHAYAT [LAWS(SC)-2003-3-96] [REFERRED]
SUDHANSU SEKHAR SABAT VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2013-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP P PRAJAPATI VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [LAWS(GJH)-2012-4-32] [REFRRED TO]
NIKHIL SURYAKANT BADDE S/O SURYAKANT NILAPPA BADDE VS. N B VAISHNAV & 2 [LAWS(GJH)-2013-9-144] [REFERRED TO]
JOSE MELETH VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-12-203] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATI REDDY VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2018-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
T.LOKACHARI VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2013-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH CHOUBEY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2019-8-76] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH SHUKLA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2016-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
N KANNADASAN VS. AJOY KHOSE [LAWS(SC)-2009-3-178] [REFERRED TO]
N KANNADASAN VS. AJOY KHOSE [LAWS(SC)-2009-5-58] [REFERRED TO]
B SRINIVASA REDDY VS. KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION [LAWS(SC)-2006-8-81] [REFERRED TO]
SADRE ALAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
KUNDAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
DR. ANANT RAM DWIVEDI VS. STATE OF U.P. THRU PRIN.SECY.MEDICAL EDU.CIVIL SECTT.& ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARESH SINGH VS. U.P. STATE SOCIAL WELFARE [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-52] [REFERRED TO]
BALADEV SAHU & SONS VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS VS. UTILITY USERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2018-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
T.SHARATH VS. GOVT. OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2013-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
SAMSUL ALAM VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-7-18] [REFERRED TO]
M/S PREET HOTEL PVT. LTD VS. ASSESSING AUTHORITY-CUM-LUXURY TAX OFFICER [LAWS(HPH)-2013-7-29] [REFERRED TO]
ASHUTOSH MISHRA VS. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MASS COMMUNICATION [LAWS(DLH)-2020-11-180] [REFERRED TO]
LOKAYYA POOJARY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2012-1-44] [REFERRED TO]
BHOODEV SINGH VS. CHAIRMAN UTTAR PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-171] [REFERRED TO]
GAMBHIRDAN K. GADHVI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2022-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
DEBENDRANATH SAHOO VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-2013-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
K KALIAPERUMAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2012-8-156] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. BHARATI REDDY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2017-12-108] [REFERRED TO]
TAPOBRATA LAHIRI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2013-4-58] [REFERRED TO]
K.R. VENUGOPALAN NAIR VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-7-133] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMARI RANA AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA SHELTERS PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-9-122] [REFERRED TO]
UMANANDA ROY VS. A AND N ADMINISTRATION [LAWS(CAL)-2006-2-35] [REFERRED TO]
PAPPU VENKATA RAO VS. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS [LAWS(APH)-2005-9-99] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH SHARMA VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NO 1 LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2007-5-140] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH CHANDRA MISHRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(HPH)-2019-12-56] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD DANISH KHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-11-67] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN SINGH CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF C.G.& OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2016-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
K. RAGUPATHI VS. BACHCHU SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-672] [REFERRED TO]
HARISH A.S. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-9-398] [REFERRED TO]
TALESHKUMAR MAGANBHAI PATEL AND ORS. VS. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-6-123] [REFERRED TO]
ANURAG VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-2018-7-358] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAT KUMAR VS. THE HONBLE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITIES OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2016-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH SAHU VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2016-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA PANDEY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2016-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH CHANDRA GUPTA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2020-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
CITIZENS WELFARE SOCIETY VS. UNION OF INDIA, REP. [LAWS(APH)-2017-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
BENNY SEBASSTIAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-1-260] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2010-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHNA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-166] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SALIL SABHLOK [LAWS(SC)-2013-2-60] [REFERRED TO]
S KATHIROLI VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2011-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
AJITHA, K. AND OTHERS VS. GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2017-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH CHANDRA SHARMA VS. AVADH RUBBER LTD. [LAWS(ALL)-2008-9-307] [REFERRED TO]
BABIE SHIRIN VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2020-2-696] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ MISHRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-186] [REFERRED TO]
BUWANI KHERA CO-OP. TPT. SOCIETY LTD VS. G.M., HARYANA ROADWAYS [LAWS(P&H)-2006-1-98] [REFERRED TO]
UMA SWAMINATHAN VS. PATEL KANTIBHAI AMBALAL [LAWS(MAD)-2008-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
NUTAN THAKUR VS. S. JAVEED AHMAD AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. THRU PRIN. SECY. HIGHER EDU. CIVIL SECTT.LKO. & ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-61] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR SAXENA VS. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH PRIN. SECY. RURAL ENGINEERING DEPTT. L [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-29] [REFERRED TO]
ALKA D/O KANUBHAI JOSHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2011-11-150] [REFERRED TO]
ARJAUL HOQUE VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
M. LIONEL ANTONY RAJ VS. DR. P.P. CHELLATHURAI [LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-1697] [REFERRED TO]
JAI PRAKASH VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CHANDAULI [LAWS(ALL)-2003-9-154] [REFERRED TO]
RENU VS. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, TIS HAZARI [LAWS(SC)-2014-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
D. MAHESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2016-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR LAL GARG VS. KULADHIPATI, VIKRAM UNIVERSITY [LAWS(MPH)-2019-7-44] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J. - (1.)The core question which arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether the Transport Commissioner of the State of Haryana has any financial interest within the meaning of S. 68(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the Government undertaking known as the Haryana Roadways so as to render him ineligible for appointment as Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority. The appellant had challenged by a writ petition the Notification dated March 27, 1993 whereunder the Transport Commissioner was appointed as Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority. Since the aforesaid Notification was superseded by a subsequent Notification of December 31, 1998 appointing the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority as Chairman and the Traffic Manager of the Haryana Roadways as a member of the authority, apart from a representative of the District Administration, the appellant amended the writ petition and challenged the Notification of December 31, 1998 also. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the writ petition by its impugned judgment and order dated February 21, 2000. Later by a Notification dated February 20, 2001 in supersession of the earlier Notification, the Transport Commissioner of Haryana was again appointed as Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority and the District Transport Officer to act as Secretary, Regional Transport Authority of concerned region as member. Before us, the counsel has challenged only the appointment of the Transport Commissioner as Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority and not the appointment of the District Transport Officer who has been appointed to act as the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority.
(2.)The appellant herein is a co-operative society duly registered under the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act. It deals in the business of passenger transport and for that purpose obtains stage carriage permits issued through the Regional Transport Authority, Hissar. Presently, it holds one permit to operate four return trips on Hansi-Bad Chhappar route which falls within the District of Hissar. 2A. The case of the appellant pleaded in the writ petition was that the Haryana Roadways is a department of the State of Haryana. It also carries on business of providing passenger transport facility. It competes with private stage carriage operators and owns and operates a fleet of motor vehicles. The Haryana Roadways is also subject to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the rules framed thereunder. Stage carriage permits are issued by the concerned Regional Transport Authority constituted under S. 68 of the Act.
(3.)It was contended that for about two decades the entire passenger transport service in the State of Haryana remained nationalised and stage carriage service was operated only by the State Transport Undertaking known as the Haryana Roadways. However, in the year 1993 by Notification issued under S. 100 of the Act, a provision was made for grant of stage carriage permits to private operators but confined to co-operative societies. Under the Notification, the routes falling within the districts with not more than 10 kilometers falling on the National or State Highways, were available for operation by co-operative societies. Accordingly, stage carriage permits are being granted to co-operative societies under Chapter V of the Act by the concerned Regional Transport Authorities of which the Transport Commissioner, Haryana was, and again is, the Chairman. By Notification dated March 27, 1998 the Government of Haryana in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 68 of the Act, in supersession of its earlier Notification dated December 30, 1996 constituted Regional Transport Authorities for each of the regions of Ambala, Hissar, Faridabad, Rohtak, Karnal and Rewari consisting of Transport Commissioner as Chairman and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority of the concerned region as member to exercise and discharge the powers and functions conferred by or under Chapter V of the Act on such authorities in the areas specified in the Notification. The aforesaid Notification of March 27, 1998 was challenged by the appellant co-operative society on the ground that the Notification was illegal inasmuch as S. 68(2) of the Act was a complete bar to the appointment of the Transport Commissioner as Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority, he being an employee of the State Government having financial interest in the Government undertaking namely, Haryana Roadways, within the meaning of S. 68(2) of the Act. In the writ petition the High Court issued a show cause notice to the respondents by order dated 5-12-1998. However, on 31-12-1998 another Notification was issued in supersession of the Notification dated March 27, 1998 whereunder the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority of concerned region was appointed as Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority and the Traffic Manager concerned of the office of General Manager, Haryana Roadways at District Headquarters as member of the authority. Another member was appointed who was a representative of the District Administration to be nominated by the Deputy Commissioner concerned.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.