BALAVANTARAJ Vs. SECRETARY HOME DEPT GOVT OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are related appeals from the judgment of Ramachandra Iyer J. (as he then was) in petitions before mm for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, raising certain important issues relating to the consequences of nationalisation of transport routes under un. IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). More particularly stated, the issues were whether Section 68-G (2) of the Act, under which an otter of alternative routes could be made to those operators whose permits had been cancelled in implementation of a scheme of nationalisation, was or was not violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution and further, whether the Government could issue specific directions to the State Transport authority under Section 43 (1) (d) (iii) of the Act, directing the issue of alternative permits to such operators whose permits had been thus cancelled. We shall refer a little later, in detail, to the context of facts in relation to which these writ petitions were filed. We may now briefly note that the learned Judge Ramachandra Iyer J. held that Section 68-G (2)was valid, that Section 43 (1) (d) (iii) did invest a power in Government to issue such specific directions, that both the offer under Section 68-G (2) as well as the directions under Section 43 (1) (d) (iii) were acts of administrative and not quasi-judicial character and hence mat the permits granted to the respondents were valid. The rule nisi was discharged, and the petitions were dismissed.

(2.) WE propose, at the outset, to refer to the fads in W. A. Nos. 19, 35 and 36 of 1961, as they comprehensively outline the context in which the proceedings have arisen. On 30-12-1959, the Government approved schemes under Ch. IV-A nationalising the routes (i) Madras to Lattice Bridge operated by Associated transports Madras (Private) Ltd, one of the respondents, (ii) Madras to villivakkam, similarly operated by Presidency Transports (Private) Ltd. , Madras, another respondent. On the same date, the permits of these respondents on these routes, which were due to expire on 31-12-1959, were cancelled by the Regional transport Authority, Chingleput. Again on the same date the State Transport undertaking was granted permits on the routes Madras to Lattice Bridge and madras to Villivakkam, which had been nationalised. On 12-8-1960, the government issued Government Order Ms. No. 2395 (Home) declaring a new route from Trivelore to Perambakkam, by virtue of their powers under Section 43a (2) of the Act. It must be here stated that Trivellore to Perambakkam is a segment (10 miles) of the route Trivellore to Kancheepuram (41 miles), upon which the appellant in W. A. No. 19 of 1961 was plying buses as an existing operator with a permit. Admittedly, notice was not given to this appellant and he was not heard before the new route was declared by the Government; this, as we shall see later, is one of the important grounds of objection in the appeals. On 17-8-1960, the Government published a draft notification under Section 43 (1) (d) (iii) of the Act embodying proposals to grant permits on the new route, Trivellore to Perambakkam, to each of the two respondents referred to already, who might be characterised as displaced permit holders. On 12-9-1960, the appellant in W. A. No. 19 of 1951, filed objections to this course, which were heard on 11-10-1960, by the Secretary, home Department, and finally on 15-10-1960, Government Order Ms. No. 2363 was issued directing the State Transport authority to direct the Regional Transport authority, Chingleput, in its turn, to grant the two permits.

(3.) THE facts in W. A. Nos. 35 and 36 of 1961 were very similar. On 28-8-1957, a draft scheme was published under Ch. IV-A proposing the nationalisation of the route Madras (Mint) to Red Hills, in which two buses were operated by one of the respondents (Ekambaram Chettiar ). On 29-1-1938, the Government approved the draft scheme in Government Order Ms. No. 253 Home. The existing permits of the respondent were due to expire on 31-1-1959, but, under Section 62 of the Act, he was granted temporary permits for four months to maintain the continuity of service. On 19-02-1959, the Government Order Ms. No. 490 Home was issued as a direction under Section 43-A (2) of the Act opening a new route, Madras to sholinghur. On 4-3-1959, Government Order Ms. No. 575 Home, was published, as a draft direction under Section 43 (1) (d) (iii) for the grant of two permits on the new route to the respondent (displaced permit holder), and inviting objections. The appellant filed objections. On 11-6-1959, these were heard by the Secretary, home Department. On 9-7-1959, the Government Order Ms. No. 1974, Home, was issued, approving the draft direction. On 19-8-1959, the State Transport Authority offered alternative permits on the new route to the respondent, and on 11-9-1959, a timings conference for the route, Madras to Sholinghur, was held by the Regional transport Autnority, Chingleput. On 17-9-1959, W. P. No. 837 of 1959 was filed, and the respondent's pre-existing permits were can-celled on 21-9-1959. We may briefly note that the facts in W. A. No. 41 of 1961 were very similar, the respondent (Ekambaram Chettiar) holding two permits as an operator in the route, madras (Mint) to Red Hills which was nationalised; after which the Government directed (under Section 43 (1) (d) of the Act) the State Transport Authority TO direct the Regional Transport Authority, Vellore, in turn, to grant two permits on the route Madras to Sholinghur newly declared in G. O. Ms. No. 40 dated 19-021959, to the respondent in lieu of the two pre-existing permits cancelled under the scheme of nationalisation.