JAGAT BUS SERVICE Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I should like to indicate my attitude towards the line taken by my brother, Agarwala J., and, with this object in view, I propose to make in this case a few remarks of my own. The question whether any or all the members of the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority were validly nominated or not came up for consideration before us at the time when we were disposing of the Full Bench case of Moti Lal v. Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh, A. I. R. (38) 1951 ALL. 257. Reference may be made to the observations relating to this matter by the various learned Judges composing that Bench. The learned Chief Justice was not impressed with the argument that officials of Government serving in the Transport Department must be said to have a financial interest inasmuch as their service depended upon the continuation of the Transport Department. He went on to observe that without further facts it would be impossible to hold that a person who was in the permanent service of the State could be deemed to have acquired a financial interest in an undertaking started by the Government by merely being put in charge of that Department. Mootham and Wanchoo JJ. pointed out that there could, at the time that the Motor Vehicles Act was passed be no objection to the Provincial and Regional Transport Authorities being composed of Government servants and persons nominated by the Government for they had to decide only the merits of conflicting claims between citizens and citizens. That might, however, cease to be so when the Government itself operated a transport undertaking. They went on, however, to observe that sufficient facts had not been placed before them to enable them to say whether any of the persons who at that time composed the various Transport Authorities had a financial interest whether as a proprietor or employee or otherwise in any transport undertaking within the meaning of Section 44 (2). They left that question as an open question which might require consideration at a later stage. The view which I took was that the object of the section, i. e., Section 44 (2), was to ensure that the persons appointed must be persons possessed of an independent mind not tied to the vested interests of such transport business. On that assumption I remarked that the scheme ruled out the appointment of officials serving either permanently or temporarily on a loan basis in the Transport Department. The remark was further made by me that the difficulty in deciding the question raised was one connected with facts. I indicated that on the assumption that the Regional Transport Officer got his salary from the budget of the Transport Department, I would be prepared to hold that he was disqualified from acting on the Board. I do not think that that disqualification would attach to some other officers as they had nothing to do with the Transport Department and that it would be going too far to hold that a permanent official who does not occupy the position of a transport official appointed to the Board was covered by the disqualification laid down by Section 44(2) of the Act. Agarwala J. pointed out that a person could be said to have a financial interest only if he was an employee of the body, carrying on any transport undertaking. On that assumption, he held that Government employees in the Roadways Department undoubtedly fell under Section 44 (2), Motor Vehicles Act and if any such persons were found to have been appointed as members of the State Regional Transport Authority, their appointment would be invalid. He was unable to make any order in regard to that matter as the facts of that part of the case were not clear to him.

(2.) I have referred to the view of the various members of the Bench in order to indicate that at the time when this question was being considered in connection with other questions raised in regard to the Motor Vehicles Act, there was a paucity of the materials necessary for the formation of a definite judgment. I regret to observe that the materials before me are no more definite or satisfactory than they were at the time when the Full Bench decision was delivered. I note that in the affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the applicant all that is stated is that Shri Jagdish Prasad receives certain extra pecuniary allowances and amenities which he would not have received in his original post of Executive Engineer. No indication is however, given of the extra pecuniary allowances and various amenities which he is supposed to receive as Transport Commissioner. Repeatedly the suggestion was made by the Court that the budget of the Roadways sub-department as well as of the Transport Department might be placed before it. These figures could not be supplied to us and the position at the moment is that, according to the affidavit which has been filed by Mr. Sahi on behalf of the various officers, their salaries do not depend upon the success or failure of the transport undertaking and that their posts and salaries cannot be affected even if the Roadways were to be wound up. It has been further pointed out in that affidavit that Shri Jagdish Prasad is a permanent employee of the Public Works Department, that his substantive post is that of a Senior Superintending Engineer and that the staff car which was sanctioned for him was made available to all officers who have to do extensive touring duties. It has been categorically asserted that he has not been provided with any amenities as the Head of a Department which is in charge of running the Roadways. Our judgments in the Full Bench case, referred to above, proceeded upon the assumption that the Transport Commissioner was getting some financial benefit out of the Roadways sub-department I am unable to say on the material before us that that assumption is borne oat by the facts which have been brought to our notice. We do not even know whether the State Transport Commissioner gets his salary from the budget of the Transport Department or the Roadways section of the Transport Department. There is nothing to indicate that the Deputy Inspector General of Police who, according to the test laid down by us, would be otherwise qualified to act on the Board gets his salary or any of his allowances from the Transport Department or, to be more accurate, from the Roadways section of the Transport Department. There is nothing to indicate that the officers in question get any gratuity, bonus or share in the profits of the Roadways run by Government. The position, as I see it, is that they are permanent officials who have not been shown, as, indeed, it was incumbent on the applicant to show, to be possessing a financial interest in the transport undertaking run by Government. I may mention that the third member is a M. L. A. Obviously he cannot be held to be under any disability under Section 44 (2) of the Act. I feel that on the materials before us, I would not be justified in holding that the Regional Transport Authority is illegally constituted. It is unnecessary to express any opinion on any other point in the case as this finding is sufficient to dispose of the application. This being the state of affairs, I feel that there is no alternative but to reject the application presented to us by the applicant.

(3.) The thing to do for the applicant was to show that the persons who constituted the Regional Transport Authority were persons who could not be said to be possessed of an independent mind. They have not been shown to us to be tied to any such vested interests as would disqualify them under Section 44 (2), Motor Vehicles Act. The applicant has not, in the application presented by it, supplied material for us to hold that the persons serving in the State Transport Authority are under any disqualification. The burden was on the applicant to show that they were disqualified and it has not discharged that burden in this case.