AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Veeraswami, C.J.—These petitions and an appeal belong to the Pallavan Batch which we have dismissed by order dated 11th September
1974 in Sri Gandiban Bus Service Chingleput v. State of Tamilnadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Dept, Madras and
others� W.A. No. 240 of 1973 and connected cases. These cases have been heard separately, because of some other common points raised. It
was said that there was uniform failure by the Home Secretary to summon and examine witnesses and documents in violation of S.68-D of the
Motor Vehicles Act, that there was a similar violation of the Section inasmuch as it had already been practically decided that Pallavan Transport
System should implement the scheme, and that S.68-C (2) was also violated inasmuch as the Home Secretary gave no finding as to whether the
proposed scheme would be economical which was a precondition of approval of a draft scheme. The substance of these objections would have
been somewhat serious but for Capital Multi-purpose Co-operative Society Bhopal and Others Vs. The State of M.P. and Others, . That the
proceeding under S. 68-Cis quasi judicial, has long been established since Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Others Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation and Another, But, certain observations made in Malik Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, and Nehru Motor Transport Co-
operative Society Ltd. and Others Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others, relating to summoning and examining witnesses and documents bad
somewhat lost their force in view of Capital Multi-purpose Co-operative Society Bhopal and Others Vs. The State of M.P. and Others, . There, it
has been pointed out that though the proceeding under S. 68-C. is quasi judicial, in as much as there is no provision having force of law to summon
witnesses or documents, no approval of the scheme could be successfully attacked on the ground of failure to summon either witnesses or
documents. But, at the same time, it was pointed cut in that case that it was quite open to the authorities themselves or at the instance of the parties
to summon witnesses or documents. This was not because there was any power. If the witnesses or documents summoned were not forthcoming,
it would be open to the authorities to draw an adverse inference. That was the position of law as explained in Capital Multi-purpose Co-operative
Society Bhopal and Others Vs. The State of M.P. and Others, . Bearing the observations in that judgment in mind, we are inclined to think that in
relation to the facts of the present cases no interference with the approval of the scheme is called for. Realising the position, counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Venugopal urged that the hearing was not effective, because, whereas the State Transport under taking was heard by the Home
Secretary, the real person to work out the scheme was the Pallavan Transport System so that no opportunity was provided at the hearing to make
representations against the Pallavan Transport System. But, the whole question in the context of S. 68-D. is to see whether in the scheme of
nationalisation, the requisite elements mentioned in S. 68-C. have been satisfied. On that matter the order of the Secretary shows satisfaction on his
part.
The other ground urged was that no finding has been rendered by the Home Secretary in respect of the question whether the proposed scheme
could be run economically. Reading the order as a whole, we are inclined to think that the Home Secretary was quite alive to the representation as
well. His order shows that he has considered the entire material before him and come to the conclusion that approval of the scheme should be
granted.
The petitions and appeal are, therefore, dismissed.
W.P. 2375 of 1974:
The only special point urged in this petition is that calculating the distance of 75 miles of the route in question, the distance covered by the shuttle
trips has also been taken into account. In support of this contention, our attention has been invited to the definitions of ''route'' and ''shuttle trip''.
There is also definition of ''trip'' as meaning, in relation to the service performed by a vehicle on a route, the total distance in all its trips, including
shuttle trips, if any, performed by the vehicle in a day. The point has, therefore, no substance. The writ petition is also dismissed. In all the petitions
and appeal there will be no costs between party and party. Counsel''s fee for the purpose of adjustment of the fee as between counsel and party is
fixed at Rs. 100 in each.