SYED SADAQ AH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On an earlier occasion, after the publication of draft schemes under Sec. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 a batch of Writ Petitions W.P. Nos. 2763/90 etc. was filed on 6-3-1990, questioning the constitutional validity of the provisions of Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and for a direction that the then Minister of Transport should not be allowed to hear the objections. Stay of publication of the approved scheme under Sec. 100 (3) of the new Act was granted and ultimately, while the validity of the Act was upheld, this Court by judgment dated 6-11-1990 partly allowed that batch permitting fresh objections to be filed and the objections considered. Thereafter, the objections were considered, and approved schemes were published on 26-2-1990 (with errata on 27-2-1990). It is these approved schemes that are again questioned in this present batch of writ petitions. This time, no stay was granted and the writ petitions themselves are being disposed of on merits after hearing both sides. Various points have been raised but the main point is regarding the period of limitation of one year prescribed in Section 100 (4) of the new Act.

(2.) The following are the facts: Two hundred and fifty draft schemes for taking over various routes in several districts of Andhra Pradesh were published under Sec. 68-C of the Old Act by the APSRTC in the A.P. Gazette between 12-4-1989 to 26-4-1989 and objections were filed by the operators under Sec, 68-D, on 10-5-1989 and 12-5-1989. While matters stood thus, the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force with effect from 1-7-1989. Thereafter, on 7-2-1990, the Government gave notice that the objections will be heard by the Minister for Transport from 9-3-1990 to 14-3-90. On 2-3-1990, the petitioners filed further objections imputing personal and official bias to the then Minister and then filed W.P. No. 2763/1990 and batch on 6-3-1990 and subsequent dates. The petitioners challenged the validity of the. provisions in Chapter VI of the New Act in relation to various provisions of the Constitution of India and in particular in Art, 19. They sought a declaration that the provisions of Chapter VI were unconstitutional and also a direction that the then Minister should not be allowed to hear the objections. The first of the Writs in the abovesaid earlier batch of Writ Petitions (W.P. No. 2763/90) was admitted on 8-3-1990 and in the W.P. M.P. 3625/90 an interim direction was granted permitting the hearing of the objections by the Minister but staying the publication of the approved scheme. The hearing took place before the Minister from 9-3-1990 to 14-3-1990, and the Minister passed an Order on 26-6-1990 rejecting the objections but in view of the stay granted in W.P M.Ps, the approved schemes were not published under Sec. 100 (3) of the new Act.

(3.) The said earlier batch of writ petitions was disposed of by M.N. Rao, J., on 6-11-1990 in the Judgment reported in P. Narsimloo vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Constitutional validity of the Act was upheld and the allegations of bias were also rejected. The learned Judge, however, held that in view of Sec- 217 (2) (e) of the New Act, the provisions of Sec. 100 of that Act are attracted at the stage of disposal of the objections and that under Sec, 100 (1) "any person" was entitled to file objections (as opposed to the limited classes of persons in Sec. 68-D (1) of the Old Act) and that therefore fresh objections should be invited by the Government under Sec. 100 (1) within two weeks and the same should be disposed of within two months thereafter. The learned Judge later extended the time by two more weeks upto 31-12-90 foi filing objections.