K. B. ANWAR BASHA Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY VELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions and an appeal belong to the Pallavan Batch which we have dismissed by order D/ -11 -9 -74 in W.A.No. 240 of 1973 (Mad) - Sri Gandiban Bus Service Chingleput v. State of Tamilnadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Dept, Madras and others - and connected cases. These cases have been heard separately because of some other common points raised. It was said that there was uniform failure by the Home Secretary to summon and examine witnesses and documents in violation of Section 68 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, that there was a similar violation of the section inasmuch as it had already been practically decided that Pallavan transport system should implement the scheme, and that Section 68 -C (2) was also violated inasmuch as to the Home secretary gave no finding as to whether the proposed scheme would be economical which was a pre -condition of approval of a draft scheme. The substance of these objections would have been somewhat serious but for capital M.P. Co -op. Societies Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1967 SC 1815. That the proceeding under Section 68 -C is quasi judicial, has long been established since G. Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation AIR 1959 SC 308. But certain observations made in Malikram v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC 1575 and Nehru Motor Transport Co -operative Society v. State of Rajastan, AIR 1963 SC 1098 relating to summoning and examining witnesses and documents had somewhat lost their force in view of M.P. Co -operative Societies v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1815. There it has been pointed out that though the proceeding under Section 68 -C is quasi -judicial, inasmuch as there is no provision having force of law to summon witnesses or documents, no approval of the scheme could be successfully attacked on the ground of failure to summon either witnesses or documents. But, at the same time, it was pointed out in that case that it was quite open to the authorities themselves or at the instance of the parties to summon witnesses or documents. This was not because there was any power. If the witnesses or documents summoned were not forthcoming, it would be open to the authorities to draw an adverse inference. That was the position of law as explained in M.P. Co -operative Societies v. State of Madhya Pradesh , AIR 1967 SC 1815. Bearing the observations in that judgment in mind, we are inclined to think that in relation to the facts of the present cases no interference with the approval of the scheme is called for.

(2.) REALISING the position, counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Venugopal urged that the hearing was not effective because whereas the State Transport undertaking was heard by the Home Secretary, the real person to work out the scheme was the Pallavan Transport system so that no opportunity was provided at the hearing to make representations against the Pallavan Transport System. But the whole question in the context of Section 68 -D is to see whether in the scheme of nationalisation the requisite elements mentioned in Section 68 -C have been satisfied. On that matter, the order of the Secretary shows satisfaction on his part.

(3.) THE petitions and appeal are, therefore, dismissed.