SYED M.FAZAL ALI - (1.) ONE of the planks of building an egalitarian society in order to achieve socio-economic emancipation is the policy of nationalisation of industries. Easy, cheap and dependable transport is a prime social necessity. Unfortunately, no State has been able to achieve this goal so far by a full-fledged nationalisation. Reliance is largely placed on schemes framed under Ch. IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
(2.) PERHAPS Karnataka was the only State which having become 'sadder and wiser' took the lead in enunciating the bold step of complete nationalisation of the entire transport industry but, unfortunately, it has not yet been able to implement it fully. There are two methods by which the transport industry can be nationalised: (1) where the government acts under Ch. IV-A [Section 68(b) and (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act] and after due publication formulates a scheme for taking over route or routes and invites objections thereto. After the objections have been received they are decided and ultimately processed. This method however is dilatory and involves a time consuming process which leads to delaying tactics adopted by the operators. Even so, after the objections have been decided, the operators or the persons concerned are not satisfied but go up in appeals to the law courts. These delaying tactics have resulted in most cases in an indefinite postponement of the scheme of nationalisation. Moreover, normally this process is applied to a route or routes selected by the government and is accomplished by stages which also takes a long time. (2) Another method which is the more effective one is to take over the running of the entire transport services by nationalising them, along with their units (vehicles, workshops, etc.) either by one stroke or by stages spread over a short time. This course is clearly permissible under clauses (6) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution as would be discussed in a later part of the judgment. The Karnataka State tried the second method and succeeded, to some extent, but ran into difficulties for one reason or the other. The Tamil Nadu State following the Kamataka pattern passed the impugned Ordinance, which later took the shape of the Tamil Nadu State Carriages and Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to nationalise the State transport industry by stages. The Madras High court stayed the operation of the Ordinance as also the Act and declared void all its provisions. As a result, nationalisation of transport became a stillbom child and its progressive policy was stifled the day it was put into action.
(3.) IT is this judgment of the High court which is the subjectmatter of appeals and Writ Petition before us. The Madras High court declared the Act ultra vires as being violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution as it did not fall within the protective umbrella contained in Article 31-C and on a number of other grounds which would be examined hereafter. It is manifest that the attempt of the Tamil Nadu Legislature to give effect to the principles enshrined in Article 39(b) and (c) would have secured the socialist objective aimed by the Constitution in order to build up an egalitarian society. By virtue of complete nationalisation the members of the public or the community would have got much better and greater facilities than afforded to them by the private operators running vehicles under permits. Secondly, the efficiency and efficacy of the services would undoubtedly make a marked improvement in the manner and method of running the vehicles as compared to the services run by private operators. Thirdly, prior to the passing of the Act, the entire services were actually run behind the screen through various financiers in the name of the operators with whom they had entered into hire-purchase agreements. This obviously led to concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. With the coming into force of the total nationalisation scheme, this device of concentration of wealth would be completely nipped in the bud resulting in an equal distribution of wealth and services among the people of the country. Fourthly, the private services run by the operators mainly inspired by profit making motive neither had the will nor the capacity to penetrate as deep as possible into areas so far inaccessible to the travelling public and would confine their running of the services only to serve important points. When the State takes over the entire transport services, it would undoubtedly be its duty to see that the vehicles reach the most distant part or corner of the State and serve as many travelling public as possible so that nobody is caused any inconvenience. These are some of the initial advantages of a total nationalisation scheme, which would be brought to the fore and provide an ideal service for the members of the community at large. It may be that in this process some financiers would suffer loss and some operators may also be wiped out of the business but this cannot be helped as the scheme of our Constitution is that individual rights or benefits must yield to the larger benefits and good of the entire community. Some of these points were very elaborately dealt with in the case of State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy.;