UPBHOKTA HITCHINTAK SAMITI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Order will also dispose of M. P. No. 1891/1985 4astha, a group of Advocates and others vs. The State of M. P. and others. In these two petitions the petitioners are challenging Notification of the State Government dated 30th June 1985 published in M. P. Rajpatra enhancing the bus fare in exercise of powers vested under section 43 (1) read with clauses (a) to (d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

(2.) THE petitioner in MP. No. 1463/86 claims to be a registered society under m. P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. The object of the society is to safeguard interest of citizens who are all consumers of goods, services, facilities offered by public and private bodies, persons etc. The petitioner No. 1 in M. P. No. 1891/1985 is Astha, a group of Advocates, petitioner No. 2 is Jabalpur unit of People's Union for Civil liberties and petitioner No. 3 is Self-Employed Women's Association, a registered society. The State Government issued a Notification in M. P. Rajpatra on 25th May 1985 under Section 43 (1) inviting objections and suggestions for increase in bus fares as under and mentioning that the same would be considered on 26-6-1985 at 11 a. m. in Vallabh bhavan, Bhopal :- (1) In case of ordinary stage carriages : Re. 1/- per passenger to a distance of 8 kilometers and thereafter 50 paise per passenger for each slab of 4 kilometers. (2) (a) For Express buses 20%. (b) For night buses 10% and (c) For luxury buses 40% extra. The petitioner in M. P. No. 1463/86 sent a notice through its counsel on 17-6-1985 asking the Special Secretary, Home, (Transport) of the State Government seeking information regarding the proposals, reasons and grounds for proposed enhancement to enable the petitioner to submit effective and reasoned objections and suggestions. The State Government issued an advertisement on 24-6-1985 giving reasons for the proposed increase is its bus fares saying that payscales of the employees of M. P. State Road Transport Corporation have been revised, there is 47% increase in running and maintenance of buses while the proposed increase in bus fare is only 31% and in kutcha roads the increase is only 10% and there is no increase in city bus fares. It was also mentioned that the percentage of the fare so collected would be utilised in giving better facilities to the passengers, changing old buses, purchasing new buses and increasing the number of buses. However, no separate information was furnished by the state Government to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted its objections to the proposed increase in fares in writing on 25-6-1985. In M. P. No. 1891/85 after reading the notice inviting objections, the petitioner No. 2 wrote to the Divisional Manager of the corporation at Jabalpur for supplying the following documents (i) copy of the proposal sent by the Corporation to the Government for proposed increase in fares and (ii) copy of the balance sheet and annual report of the Corporation for the preceding three years. Since no reply was received, the petitioner No. 2 sought the information from the chairman of the Corporation on 7-6-1985 who also did not respond to the same and, therefore, the petitioner No. 2 demanded copies of the documents from the Special secretary, Home, (Transport) who was to hear the objections on 26-6-1985. The petitioner in M. P. No. 1463/86 and Shri Babulal Gour, B. J. P. , M. L. A. alone appeared before the Special Secretary who heard them. The other petitioners did not appear. By final Notification published in M. P. Rajpatra on 30th June 1985 the bus fares were increased as proposed in the earlier Notification but clarifying that there will be no increase in city bus fare.

(3.) THE petitioner's case is that M. P. State Road Transport Corporation has been constituted by the State Government under Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, in order to provide an economic, efficient, adequate and properly coordinated transport service to the people. In this State 57. 57% of the State population is living below the poverty line and most of the areas are not connected by rail lines, so the people have to rely mainly on transport services. As against its avowed purpose and object, the corporation is totally neglected and mismanaged body. Its fleet of buses and quality of service have been deteriorating during course of years. It is running into huge losses. In spite of numerous hikes in the fare from time to time, the Corporation could not improve its position. As against this, its franchisees/assignees make substantial profits even after operating on lower margins of profit and paying substantial royalties to the corporation. There are numerous breakdowns and most of the buses are not roadworthy. There is indiscipline and no control over the staff and large scale pilferage in tickets and fares. Bus terminals are only in bigger places but do not provide the basic needs of the travelling public. Travel in Corporation buses is an ordeal and only undertaken out of some compulsion. There is no co-ordination and trips are abruptly cancelled. Late departure is a rule and timely arrival is an exception. Bus fares were revised in the year 1983 and again within a span of 2 years there has been further hike in bus fares. The present revision in bus fares is only to help the Corporation which is in a very bad shape. The enhancement of bus fare is under Section 43 (1) and the petitioner in M. P. No. 1463/86 sought information regarding the proposals, reasons and grounds of proposed enhancement to enable it to submit effective suggestions and objections but the respondents did not supply necessary information, with the result there was no proper opportunity and violation of Section 43. Whatever objections were raised by the petitioner, they were heard and decided post-haste. It appears that the authorities had already pre-determined mind to increase the fares. In M. P. No. 1891/85 the petitioner no. 2 had applied for copies of the proposals sent by the Corporation and the copies of its balance sheet and the annual reports for the last 3 years. Since the documents were not supplied, the petitioner No. 2 could not submit its suggestions and objections and there is violation of proviso to Section 43. Revision in the bus fare is liable to be struck down on the grounds (i) the conditions precedent for issuing of a direction under section 43 were non-existing for the impugned fare increase; (ii) there is no category like 'night bus service' under M. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1974, and, therefore, no extra charges could be levied for the night bus service. Proviso to Section 43 requires an adequate opportunity of being heard to the persons affected and there was denial of such opportunity to the petitioners inasmuch as no information was furnished to show reasons and basis for the increase; (iii) there is a discrimination shown in favour of the corporation and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and (iv) there is also violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.