Damodaran vs Director, State Transport Department and Another

M.S. Menon, J.—This petition challenges the validity of a scheme of road transport service approved u/s 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Sub-section 1 of that section provides:

Any person affected by the scheme published u/s 68 C may, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the scheme in the Official Gazette, file objections thereto before the State Government

and sub-section (2):

The State Government may, after considering the objections and after giving an opportunity to the objector or his representatives and the representatives of the State Transport undertaking to be heard in the matter, if they so desire, approve or modify the scheme.

The objections in this case were heard by the "Public Works Secretary" and the order over-ruling the objections and approving the scheme was passed by the Minister for Transport. According to the petitioner such a proceeding is clearly unsustainable and the resultant scheme has to be quashed by an appropriate writ or direction from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The submission is clearly supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Others Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another, , wherein it was held that such a disposal offends a "basic principle of judicial procedure". The Supreme Court said:

Such a procedure defeats the object of personal hearing. Personal hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of the witnesses and clear-up his doubts during the course of the arguments, and the party appearing to persuade the authority by reasoned argument to accept his point of view. If one person hears and another decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality.

It follows that the scheme has to be quashed and we order accordingly. No costs.

In the light of what is stated above, it is unnecessary to consider the other points raised by Counsel for the petitioner and the Advocate-General, and they are not considered in this judgment. We also make it clear that nothing in this judgment will in any way preclude further action by appropriate authority in accordance with the law.