P NARSIMLOO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this batch of forty four writ petitions are carrying on business as motor transport operators plying vehicles on various routes in the districts of Ranga Reddy, Medhak, Nalgonda, Mahbubnagar, Adilabad, Guntur, Krishna, etc. These writ petitions raise identical questions for adjudication and so they are disposed of by this common judgment. At issue in all the writ petitions is the validity of certain draft schemes published by the State Transport Undertaking in the official gazette between 12-4-1989 and 15-5-1989. In some of the writ petitions, Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (Act No.59 of 1988-for short 'the 1988 Act') is questioned.

(2.) The 1988 Act came into force with effect from 1-7-1989. The earlier law-the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (for short "the 1939 Act") stood repealed by section 217 of the 1988 Act. By the date of the coming into force of the 1988 Act, the draft schemes in question have already been published in the Official Gazette by the State Road Transport Undertaking-the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation under Sec. 68 C of the 1939 Act. Within thirty days from the date of the publication of the draft schemes in the official gazette, the categories of persons/associations/authorities specified in sub-section (1) of Sec. 68 D of the 1939 Act are entitled to file objection before the State Government Objections have already been filed under Sec. 68D before the State Government A notice dated 7-2-1990 was issued by the Government to the effect that the hearing on the objections would take place before the Minister for Transport from 9-3-1990 onwards. On 2-3-1990, some of the petitioners filed objections before the State Minister contending that he should not proceed with the hearing since he made certain statements which amounted to prejudging the entire issue and, therefore, any hearing done by him would be hit by the "doctrine of bias". No order was passed on these applications. The hearing, as scheduled, went on. From 6-3-1990 onwards, writ petitions were filed in this Court and interim directions were granted staying the publication of the approved schemes.

(3.) Shri G. Suryanarayana, who advanced leading arguments in this batch of writ petitions, has raised three contentions.(1) Chapter VI of the 1988 Act, which contains special provisions relating to State Transport Undertakings with overriding effect over other laws, is ultra vires article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India;(2) The Minister, who heard the objections on the draft schemes, was biased against the private transport operators, the petitioners herein; and (3) After coming into force of the 1988 Act, it is incubment on the State Government to issue a fresh notification for the purpose of enabling "any person" to file objection under sub-section (1) of section 100 thereof in view of the transitory provisions contained in Sec. 217. The other learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also submitted arguments in support of the points urged by Shri G. Suryanarayana. In opposition to these contentions, die learned Advocate-General, appearing for the State Government as well as the Minister and the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, contends that under article 19(6), the Legislature is empowered to make any law relating to carrying on by the State, or by a Corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens. The fundamental right guaranteed under article 19(1) (g) is subject to the aforesaid power under article 19(6). The learned Central Government Standing Counsel advanced contentions in support of the stand taken by the the learned Advocate-General. On the question of bias, the learned Advocate General says that She Minister had only reiterated the policy statements on several occasions and those statements should not be interpreted as being afflicted with my bias; the Minister never intended to act contrary to law. Even after the 1988 Act came into force, by virtue of the transitory provisions contained in section 217, in respect of draft schemes . which have already been published, the three categories specified in section 68-D (1) alone are entitled to file objections before the State Government. The learned Government Pleader for Transport and Shri Reddappa Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, also addressed arguments in opposition to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.