JWALA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Shri jwala Prasad Sharma, erstwhile Chairman of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the corporation'), which has been superseded by the State of Rajas than by a Notification No. F. (7) (3) (3)Pari/72 dated 20th May, 1972, marked Annexure 5 on the record. Since the petitioner has challenged the validity of the said notification and has prayed that it may be set aside, it would be proper to reproduce this notification in extenso:-" government OF RAJASTHAN home (Group VII) Department No. F. 7 (3) (3) Pari/72, Dated the 20th may, 1972. NOTIFICATION whereas the State Government issued a notice under Section 38 of the road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (Central Act LXIV of 1950) to the rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation on 18th April, 1972 to show cause why it should not be superseded; and whereas the State Government after considering the explanation and objections of the Corporation is of the opinion that the Corporation is unable to perform and has persistently made default in the performance of the duties imposed on it by or under the provision of the road Transport Corporations Act and has further abused its powers. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Subsection (1) of Section 38 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (Central Act LXIV of 1950) the State Government with the approval of the Central Government, hereby supersedes the Rajasthan State Road transport Corporation for a period of six months. By Order of Governor sd/- Ram Singh commissioner for Home Affairs, and Secretary to Government. "

(2.) IN exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporations act, 1950 (Act No. LXIV of 1950) the Government of Rajasthan established a Road transport Corporation some time in the year 1964. The petitioner was appointed its Chairman Vide Notification dated 11-12-1967 Annexure 1, reproduced below:-

(3.) THE petitioner's case is that during his tenure of office as chairman the Corporation greatly improved its financial position and working, yet by a notice dated 18-4-72 the government of Rajasthan called upon the Corporation to show cause why it should not be superseded. The notice Annex. 3 runs as follows:-