K. SUBBA RAO, K. N. WANCHOO J. : - (1.) THE following Judgments of the court were delivered by
(2.) (On behalf of S. R. Das C. J., N. H. Bhagwati and K. Subba Rao JJ.)This is an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of the petitioners fundamental right to carry on the business of motor transport in Krishna District in Andhra Pradesh, and for prohibiting the respondents from taking over the routes on which the petitioners have been plying their stage carriages. The petitioners have been carrying on motor transport business in Krishna District for several years past by obtaining permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (IV of 1939), as amended by Act 100 of 1956, hereinafter called the Act, in respect of various routes. They estimate the value of their investment in the -business at a sum of Rs. 20,00,000.00. The amending Act inserted a new Ch. IV-A in the Act providing for the State Transport Undertaking running the business to the exclusion, complete or partial, of all other persons doing business in the State. Ch. IV-A provided for a machinery called the State Transport Undertaking, defined under s. 68-A(b) as an undertaking providing road transport service, to run the transport business in the State. In exercise of the powers conferred by s. 68-C of the Act, one Shri Guru Pershad, styled as the General Manager of the State Transport Undertaking of the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport, published a scheme for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated transport service in public interest to operate the transport service mentioned therein with effect from the date notified by the State government. Objections were invited within 30 days from the date of the publication of the proposal in the Official Gazette, viz., 14/11/1957. 138 objections were received. Individual notices were issued by the State government by registered post to all the objectors. On 26/12/1957, the secretary to government, Home Department, in charge of transport, heard the objections. 88 of the objectors represented their cases through their advocates ; three of them represented their cases personally and the rest were not present at the time of hearing. After considering all the objections and after giving an opportunity to the objectors, their representatives and the representatives of the State Transport Undertaking the State government found that the objections to the scheme were devoid of substance. On that finding, the State government approved of the scheme in G.O. Ms. 58, Home (Transport IV), dated 7/01/1958, and the approved scheme was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 9/01/1958. The scheme was ordered to come into force with effect from 10/01/1958. The government of Andhra Pradesh also established a Road Transport Corporation under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (LXIV of 1950), called the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, with effect from January I I,' 1958, and by its order dated 11/01/1958, the said Corporation was empowered to take over the management of the erstwhile Road Transport Department. The said Transport Corporation is now implementing the scheme of nationalisation of bus transport under a phased programme. The petitioners, who are plying their buses on various routes in Krishna District, apprehending that their routes would be taken over by the Corporation pursuant to the aforesaid scheme, seek the aid of this court to protect their fundamental right to carry on their business against the action of the State Corporation on various grounds.
(3.) MR. M.K. Nambiar, appearing for the petitioners, contends that the scheme, in pursuance of which the bus routes operated by the petitioners are sought to be taken over by the State Road Transport Corporation, is ultra vires and illegal on two grounds, viz., (a) that the provisions of Ch. IV-A of the Act violates the fundamental rights secured to the citizens by the Constitution and (b) that the scheme frained under the, Act is ultra vires the Act. The first ground is sought to be supported by the contention that Ch. IV-A of the Act, in substance and effect, authorizes the State to acquire the undertakings of citizens without providing for compensation for the entire undertakings and therefore it is a fraud on the Constitution, particularly on Art. 31 thereof. Shortly stated, his argument is that under Art. 31 of the Constitution no law shall be made for the transfer of ownership or right to possession of any property to the State or to a Corporation without fixing the amount of compensation or specifying the principles on which compensation is to be determined and given, and that Ch. IV-A of the Act is a colourable legislation enabling such a transfer of ownership without providing for compensation for the property transferred, under the guise of cancellation of a permit.;