ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTS MADRAS PRIVATE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Appeal is preferred by the Associated Transports (Madras) Private limited, by its Managing Director against the order of Mohan, J. , dismissing the appellant's writ petition for the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the union of India, the State of Tamil Nadu and the Special Secretary to government, Home Department, Madras, from taking further proceedings pursuant to the notice of hearing in Memo No. 40-804/tr. III-72-36 dated 5-51976.

(2.) THE appellant is a stage carriage operator, and, among other permits, ha is operating one permit on the inter-State Route Madras (Mint.) to Naidupet. The state of Tamil Nadu formulated a policy of nationalisation of bus routes, the distance of which exceeded 75 miles or when the route touched the city of madras. The route was covered by a draft scheme of nationalisation under section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act. A scheme of nationalisation was issued by the Secretary to Government by virtue of the delegated powers vested in him under Rule 23-A of the Madras Business Rules. The appellant filed his objections to the draft scheme. The third respondent issued a notice of hearing to consider the objections filed by the appellant under Section 68-D of the Act. The hearing was posted to 24th May, 1976. The writ petition was filed for the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from taking any further proceedings pursuant to the said notice dated 5th May, 1976, Mohan, J. , who heard the writ petition, dismissed it. Hence this writ appeal by the operator.

(3.) MR. K. K. Venugopal, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the governor had acted without authority, as, according to him, it was not open to the Governor to bring into existence a Cabinet system of Government consisting of two Advisers appointed by him between whom he had distributed all the portfolios to enable them to finally decide all matters. Learned counsel further submitted that the functions of the Secretary acting under Section 68-D of the Act was quasi-judicial in nature, that those functions were withdrawn by the President and transferred to the Governor, and that the Governor alone could discharge those functions. Thirdly he submitted that, in the absence of the Cabinet system of Government and by reason of the suspension of Article 166 (3) of the Constitution of India, the old Rules of Business would not continue to be in force.