- (1.) Civil Appeals Nos. 1022 to 1037 of 1965 are appeals under certificate granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and arise from orders made by that Court in applications under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) incorporated under the Road Transport Corporations Act, is the appellant in all the appeals. For the purpose of effectuating the nationalisation of Road Transport Services on certain routes in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant framed five schemes, being Schemes Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9, which were duly published in the State Gazette. THE existing operators who were affected by the proposed schemes filed objections. THE objections were heard by Shri R. S. Shukla, Special Secretary to the State Government in the Home Department, and he passed in each case an order approving the scheme after modifying the same, in certain respects. Scheme No. 5, as approved, was published in the State Gazette on October 18, 1963 and the other four schemes, as duly approved, were published in the State Gazette dated February 7, 1964. Orders were then issued cancelling and modifying certain existing permits and the holders of those permits were required to produce them for cancellation or for making necessary amendments. THEreupon, several objectors filed writ petitions in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the order of the Special Secretary on various grounds. Writ petitions were filed against each of the schemes separately, but the grounds raised were common and the reliefs claimed were identical. In substance, the operators challenged the various steps taken under the provisions contained in Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939), hereinafter called the Act, and the rules framed thereunder. By its order, dated December 23, 1964, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh quashed the orders modifying schemes Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9, the approved schemes as published in the Official Gazette and the orders passed and notices issued under section 68-F (2) of the Act. In so doing, the learned Judges of the Division Bench proceeded only on one ground. They held that although R. S. Shukla, Special Secretary, had been authorised to dispose of the objections received in respect of the schemes, he had not been authorised to approve or modify them PREMCHAND JAIN V/S STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, 1965 JabLJ 611). In order to correct the omission noticed in the earlier order, the State Government amended Supplementary Instruction No. 2 issued under rule 13 of the Rules of Business and rule 7 of the Government Business (Allocation) Rules which had been made under Article 166 of the Constitution. Under the amended Supplementary Instruction No. 2, the Chief Minister expressly authorised the Special Secretary to exercise the powers of the State Government under section 68-D to approve or modify the schemes and also take all further steps towards that end. After the Special Secretary was authorised in the manner stated above, he issued notices dated January 7, 1965, to the operators concerned intimating them that the various schemes would be taken up by him on January 30, 1965, for approval or modification under section 68-D to the Act. Many existing operators, including the contesting respondents raised certain objections before the Special Secretary. By his order, dated February 2, 1965, the Special Secretary overruled the objections and, after making certain modifications of an inconsequential character, approved the schemes. Those schemes, as modified by the order of the Special Secretary, were duly published in the Official Gazette, dated February 12, 1965. Thereafter, for the purpose of giving effect to those approved schemes, further action was taken under section 68-F (2) of the Act. The operators moved the High Court again under Article 226 of the Constitution calling in question the approved schemes and the further action taken to give effect to them, on several grounds. The only grounds which were pressed before the learned Judges of the Division Bench were these: (1) The Special Secretary had no jurisdiction to hear objections or to approve or modify the schemes. (2) Before approving the schemes, the Special Secretary did not give to the petitioners an opportunity of being heard though he was bound so to do under section. 68-D (2) of the Act. The learned Judges of the High Court rejected the first of the contentions. With regard to the second contention they held that the written order recorded by the Special Secretary made it manifest that he did not consider and decide the objections afresh, and that "the hearing he gave to the petitioners (operators) with regard to their objections was forcical". In the opinion of the learned Judges, therefore, the order of the Special Secretary suffered from the infirmity that the petitioners (operators) were denied a hearing in the sense indicated above and their objections were not dealt with afresh in the light of the object intended to be secured by the scheme.
(3.) As a result of the conclusion reached by them, the learned Judges quashed the order of the Special Secretary dated February 2, 1965, the publication of the Schemes Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 in the State Gazette and the subsequent action taken in pursuance thereof under section 68-F. They remitted the cases to the Special Secretary for a fresh decision in accordance with law with "advertence" to the observations they had made in their order (1). Against the said orders of the High Court the Corporation applied for and obtained certificate of fitness and filed the present appeals. In these appeals, the learned Attorney-General has argued that on a true construction of the order made by the High Court on an earlier occasion in Premchand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1966 AIR(MP) 117. it is clear that there was no direction by the High Court to determine the objections raised by the objectors afresh by a reappraisal of the material available before him, and that the operators had not made a request to the Special Secretary for such a reappraisal. It may be noted at the out set that after the Chief Minister specifically empowered him to approve or modify the schemes, the Special Secretary issued further notices to the operators on January 7, 1965. The operators filed their objections. The main objection was that the Special Secretary had no jurisdiction to hear objections and to approve or modify the schemes. More specifically the objection was that the Special Secretary was not simultaneously empowered to hear objections and to approve or modify the schemes and that in the circumstances his order was without jurisdiction. The Special Secretary held that by virtue of the amendment of the Rules of Business made by the Chief Minister, he had the necessary authority to approve or modify the schemes and that there was absolutely no question of reopening the case and to commence a re-hearing of the objections. In Para 20 of his order, he dealt with the objection raised before him that there should be a fresh enquiry by reason of the changed circumstances. He stated that all that the operators did before him was to file a list of documents which they wanted the Corporation to produce.;