V HARISCHANDRA REDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are operators of Contract Carriages in different districts of the State. The State Government published a draft scheme for nationalisation of contract carnages covering the entire State of Andhra Pradesh. The proposal is to exclude all private operators. Petitioners submit that the draft scheme which was published in the Government Gazette dated 19-8-1989 is illegal and unconstitutional. The reason for so contending is that Sections 99 and 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the 1988 Act) which apply to the publication of draft scheme and its approval in so far as they have conferred powers on the State Government to hear objections to the draft scheme proposed by it and to approve it are void and inoperative as also violative of the principles of natural justice. In the alternative they seek a declaration that Chapter -VI of the 1988 Act has no application to contract carriages.

(2.) Counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that under Sections 99 and 100 of the 1988 Act the State Government is constituted as the proposer and adjudicator of schemes for nationalisation. They submit that the State Government has to function as judge in its own cause. This is said to be a departure from Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ( for short the 1939 Act) which provided that the State Transport Undertaking shall propose the draft scheme and the Government shall approve or modify or reject the scheme on a consideration of objections. The next submission is that approval of the scheme under Section 100 involves quasi-judicial process; and it is elementary that the approving authority shall comply with the principles of natural justice. Bias being one of the elements to be eliminated in such a process, the provisions of Sections 99 and 100 which constitute the same authority as the party and judge are invalid. Counsel submit that fairness in adjudications - may be judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative - is a manifestation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; and since no law can contravene Article 14, Sections 99 and 100 which provide for violation of fairness in procedure are unconstitutional. Another argument is that assuming that the above provisions are valid, they shall be so read as to enable different departments to be the proposer and adjudicator. It is submitted that this process has got the advantage of avoiding the statute being invalidated on the ground of bias. Yet another submission is that Chapter-IV of the 1988 Act has no application to Contract Carriage which are differently defined and dealt with under the Act. As a part of the submission regarding bias, it is stated that Minister for Transport who heard the objections had foreclosed his mind by declaring that it will be impossible to accommodate private operators in nationalised sectors.

(3.) Sri G. Suryanarayana, who led the arguments, took us to the corresponding provisions in Chapter IV-A of 1939 Act and Chapter VI of the 1988Act. He referred us to the definition of Contract Carriage ( Section 2 (7)), Public Service Vehicle (2 (35), Stage Carriage (2 (40)), transport vehicle (2 (47)) and road transport service (Section 97). He also invited our attention to the fact that the 1988 Act was brought in to force with effect from 1-7-1989,but the rules were promulgated only by G.O.Ms.No. 216 Transport (R & B (T. R. II) Department, dated 7-8-1989, were published in the gazette on 25-8-1989 and were to commence on 1-9-1989. Reference was made to rule 298 of the above rules and Form STU in which the impugned scheme was published in G.O.Rt.No. 861 dated 19-8-1989. Counsel submits that form STU was prescribed under Rule 298 of the rules which came into force only on 1-9-89, but the scheme was published earlier on 19-8-1989. Recitals contained in the scheme are said to indicate that the State Government has already formed an opinion that due to the fourfold requirements mentioned in Section 99 of the Act, that it is necessary in public interest to exclude private contract carriage operators and has thus prejudged the issue, disabling it to bring an unbiased and independent mind to the objections which the petitioners have filed. Absence of particulars in the scheme disabling the operators from raising effective objections thereto was also urged as a circumstance invalidating the proposal. These submissions are generally supported by other counsel.