SAMARTH TRANSPORT CO PRIVATE LTD Vs. Y B CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are a private limited company carrying on the business of operating bus service in the Nagpur region. They have been in this business for about last 20 years and have been plying their stage carriages on the routes Yeotmal-Umarkhed and Yeotmal to Pusad. The permits held by the petitioner for these routes were due to expire on the 31st of December 1959. The petitioners, therefore, made applications for the renewal of their permits to the Regional Transport Authority, Nagpur on the 24th of August, 1959. These applications for renewal made by the petitioners have not yet been disposed of and are pending before the authority. The permits of which renewal has been sought by the petitioners having expired on the 31st of December 1959, for the month of January 1959, they were issued a temporary permit and again for the month of February a temporary permit lias been issued to them which they have accepted tinder protest. We are also told that a further temporary permit has been issued to them effective till the 30th of April 1960.

(2.) ON the 29th of October 1959, a scheme of Road Transport Services of a State Transport Undertaking in the District of Yeotmal was submitted by the Provincial Transport Services under Government ownership, Nagpur to the Government of Bombay under the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the said Scheme was published according to the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959, in the Bombay Government Gazette, dated 29th October 1959 at pages 1006 to 1008. This Scheme has been signed by the 3rd Respondent. After the publication of this Scheme; the petitioners and other operators who have been operating bus services on routes within this area and about 6000 other persons have lodged their objections before the Government of Bombay as provided under section 68-D (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. By notices which the Government have issued under Rule 142 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules to the objecting operators individually on the 22nd of January 1960, the Government have informed the petitioners and other objectors that the Scheme of Road Transport Services in the Yeotmal District submitted by the Provincial Transport Services under Government ownership, Nagpur, to the Government of Bombay and published in tho Bombay Government Gazette, dated the 29-10-59, and the objections filed against the said Schema by the objectors will be considered at a hearing before the Chief Minister, Bombay State, on the 8-2-1960 at 3-30 p. m. in the Chief Minister's Chamber on the 6th Floor of Sachivalaya, Foreshore Road, Bombay. By these notices the petitioners and the other objectors have been further informed that they may appear on the said date before the Chief Minister either in person or through their duly authorised representatives and submit any point which they would like to urge personally in the matter. The Government have given a public notice to the same effect to ;tll the nfher objectors And this public notice is published in the news-paper Hitavada which has a wide circulation in the Yeotmal District. The petitioners have thereafter filed the present Special Civil Application praying for Writs and order under Articles. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the 1st Respondent prohibiting him from proceeding with the hearing relating to the Scheme of Road Transport Service in the Yeotmal District submitted by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents and from taking any steps, proceedings or actions in pursuance of the said Scheme or hearing the objections filed against the said Scheme and also directing him not to proceed with the hearing of the Scheme of Road Transport Services and the objections thereto.

(3.) NOW, the grounds on which the reliefs prayed for in the petition are claimed by the petitioners arc: Firstly that the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act are ultra vires Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution; secondly even if the provisions of the said Chapter IV-A may not be ultra vires Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India, they are still invalid as being repugnant to principles of natural justice and thirdly that even though the provisions of Chapter IV-A may not bo repugnant to the principles of natural justice, there has been dereliction of the principles of natural justice in the present case in implementing the said provisions and in proceeding under them. It is lastly argued that even though the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Act are constitutionally valid the petitioners can be deprived of their rights only in accordance with the law enacted for that purpose and in the manner as provided therein, but in the present case, the steps taken by the Government and the procedure followed by it are not in conformity with the provisions as contained in Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the petitioners therefore arc entitled to the relief-as prayed for by them. We will now proceed to consider the validity of each of the four grounds which hive been urged before us.