RAMESH BHAURAOJI GIRDE Vs. STATE MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners in these two petitions question the validity of notices dated 27-10-1983 serve on them by the respondent State Government in the purported exercise of power under sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Road Transport Corporations Act. 1950 and Rule 4A of the Bombay State Road Transport Corporation rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' and 'the rules' respectively) teminating their appointment as Directors of the Board of Directors of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation with effect kfrkom 30-11-1983 Since a common questior of law is involved in both these petitions, they are disposed of together by this judgment. In view of the urgency of the matter, on 30-11-1983 we had recorded the operative order dismissing both these petitions. We now proceed to record our reasons in support of the same.

(2.) Before dealing with the rical contentions of the parties it would be convenient at the outset tonote the relevant provisions of the Act as they sttod prior to the Road Transport corporation (Amendment) Act , 1982 (hereinafter called 'the Amendment Act') and as they stand subsequent thereto, as the controversy centres round the changes so brought about.

(3.) Section 3 of the Act empowers the State Government to establish a Road Transport Corporation in the whole part or any part of the State under such name to be exercised having regard to the circumstances stated in the said section Section 4 states that the Corporation so established shall be a body corporate by the name notified under Section 3 having perpetual succession and a common seal and can sue and be sued by the said name Section 5 of the Act, as it stood prior to the amendment (hereinafter called as ''old Section 5) was in the following terms: