NARENDRA KUMAR VARSHNEY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE six petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by 41 stage carriage permit-holders chal lenge a scheme made under Chap ter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for nationalising transport ser vices on two routes in the Agra region of Uttar Pradesh. A proposal under Section 68-C of the Act was made on the 16th April, 1962 and notified on the 21st April, 1962, in respect of Aligarh-Ramghat-via-Atrauli route Aligarh-Bijauli-via-Atrauli route was also added thereto later by an amendment made on the 5th May, 1967 and published on the 6th June, 1967. A number of ob jections were made by the various pri vate operators but the Deputy Legal Remembrancer to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, who was authorised to consider the objections on behalf of the State Government, overruled the objec tions and approved the scheme on the 20th May, 1968 and the scheme so ap proved was published on the 31st August, 1968. The scheme, inter alia, cancels the permits issued to the peti tioners.

(2.) A number of averments have been made and numerous grounds have been taken in the petitions and the supplementary affidavit impugning the scheme but the scheme was attacked at the hearing on the following grounds only:-

(3.) IT is now settled law that the authority hearing objections under Sec tion 68-D (2) of the Act has to record the evidence produced before him be fore deciding the objections. In Nage-swararao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1959 SC 308 it has been laid down that the State Government acts as a quasi-judicial Tri bunal when giving a hearing under Sec tion 68-A of the Act and in Malik Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1715. the Supreme Court has observed that any hearing before a quasi-judicial au thority does not merely mean an argu ment but it may in proper cases include the taking of evidence, both oral and documentary and that accordingly, con sidering the nature of the objections and the purpose for which the hearing is given, production of evidence either oral or documentary is comprehended within the hearing contemplated by Sec. 68-D (2). The question which, how ever, arises is whether the hearing au thority is bound to issue summonses for witnesses if requested by the objectors. In Capital Multi-purpose Co-operative Societies v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1815 the Supreme Court said:-