K SEETHARAMASWAMY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ appeals are filed against the order of our learned Brother Upendralal Waghray, J., in W.P. Nos. 13562 and 13766 of 1988. In the both these matters the scope and validity of Rule 34-A of the Andhra Pradesh Government Business Rules and Secretariat Instructions (here in after referred to as "Rules") is questioned. The points raised in these two writ appeals arose under the following circumstances.

(2.) The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation(APSRTC), a State undertaking, issued draft schemes on several routes for nationalisation in Guntur, Krishna, and Khammam districts. Sri M. Padmanabham was the Minister for Transport then. The objections were called and the objections were filed by the existing operators of these routes. The then Minister for Transport heard the matter and gave some directions regarding the supply of the material to the objectors. Meanwhile he ceased to be the Minister and the Chief Minister held that portfolio. By G.O. Ms. No. 239, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Tr. V.) Department dated July 30, 1988 invoking Rule 34-A, of the Rules, the Chief Minister nominated the Principal Secretary to Government, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department, to hear and dispose of all or any matters pertaining to the draft schemes Nos. 119/87 to 418/87. Questioning the said G.O. various operators filed the two writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 13562 & 13766/88). They learned single Judge dismissed both the writ petitions at the admission stage itself. As against those orders, the present writ appeals are filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants submits that acombines reading of the provisions of Section 68-C and 68-D of M. V. Act and Rule 34-A of the Rules would go to show that the functions that are to be discharged by the Minister-in-charge of the particular portfolio are of the qausi-judicial nature and even assuming that Rule 34-A of the Rules is valid, the G.O. issued should disclose under what exceptional situation Rule 34-A of the Rules was invoked and the Secretary was authorised to hear the objections. In the other Writ Appeal the learned counsel for the appellants went to the extent of challenging even the vires of Rule 34-A of the Rules on the ground that it is not in conformity with Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The same contentions were raised before the learned single Judge also. The learned Judge so far the first contention is concerned, rejected the same holding that the G.O. itself shosws that there are number of schemes viz., 300 draft schemes to be consider along with the objections raised in them and that the circumstance that such a large number of draft schemes have to be heard and the Chief Minister has to discharge diverse duties and functions, is enough to indicate that there is material for exercise of the power under Rule 34-A of the Rules.