# [1964] 1 S.C.R. 220

- **Citation:** [1964] 1 S.C.R. 220
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962-08-31
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. WANCJioo, K. C. DAS GuP'd, J.C. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1964-1-s-c-r-220-2891
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Motor Vehicle-Publication of acheme-Scheme, if cpnstittdionully valid-Motor Veliicles Act, 1939 (4 af 1939), as. (J~O,
68D (3)-Rajasthan .State Raad
Transpo~t Services (Development) Rules, JflGO, r. 3...,.-0anstltution of India, Arts. 14, 32.
The petitioners were holders of St;ge·carriag-e pr.rmits on
Jodhpur-Bilara and Bilara-Ileawar routes.
The Raja.•than
Roadways published a. draft scheme which provided for taking
over the transport service on-..the J odhpur- '1Hilra-Beawar-Aj·
mer route bY the Roacl\vays and also for La1'ing ove.r three over·
lapping routes or
po1~tions thereof
whiclt
were · entirely on
Jodhpur-1lil:ira-Beawaf>-Ajp1er road and the names of the
permit-holders on these three OvCrlapping routes \vlth their
per1nits \\'ere aLc;-, specified for cancellation and no other trans ...
port vehicles were toply on the route' to be taken over. The
petitioners filed objection and
challeng~c:! the scheme on the
ground of disc1 iminat ion before the Legal Re1ne1nbrat'lcer a ... -
son1e overlapping rou!es \Vere not notified.
He J;,elJ that even
though ~these routes \\'ere not specifieO in the draft ~chcme and
no notice had been given to the permit holders thereof, it was
o'pen to hiin to render the permits ineffective with rcsp'cct to
these rotJtes-also and
p~ssed orderS accordingly. 'l'hc pcrmitholders affected uy the order of tlie Legal Remembrancer filed
writ petitions in the High Ct>urt. 'fhc I-Iigh Court clircctecl
the Legal lle1nen1branccr to go into th~ n1atter again and to
leave the question of tlic twelve partially overlapping routes
for a subsequent schCmc.
'fhc cffecr of the decision of the
LegaJ Reme-,nbrancer considered in th~ light of the decision of
the High Court was that all the twelve partially overlapping
routes were left out of the scheme and on.Iv the three route~
notified in the draft·schcn1e
were
affected.
The
present
petition is directed against his decisi'Jn approving the scheme
as modifierl by him and phblished on August 31 , 1962. ln
this Court it was urged (I) that the procedure of approving a
part ·of the sclleme oner. and 'lnother part !~ter was illrgal ;
i S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
221
(ii) that the approval of the scheme by the Legal Rem·
embrancer after abdication of his own judgment was not a
valid approval ; (iii) that the Legal Remembrancer ought to
have given a fresh hearing ab initio to the objectors ; '(iv) tliat
thcrl! \Vas uu proper hearing and (v) that there \vas 9iscrimination, as the operators of the tweh-e 1fartially overlapping
r<-ute' were left out of the scheme.
·
Held, that as the twelve overlapping routes were never
included in the draft scheme, the approval given to the draft
scheme without touching these routes cannot be called an
approval of a part of the scheme.
Held,
furthd that in the present case the order of the
High Court was analogous to a remand order and therefore,
the decision of the Legal Remembrancer must he treated as a
fresh decision and not a review of his earlier decision and there ·
was nu abdicatiou by him of his functions.
Held, further, that when the ohjectors had been given full
opporlunity to lea<l evidence on the previous occasion \Vhich
was still
there for
the Legal Rememhrancer to take into
account, it was sufficient for hin1 to hear the objector's argu·
mcnts. If it is borne in mind that the order passed by the
High Court in the proceedings \Vas in the nature of a ren1and
01dcr, this objection iuust fail,
Held, further, that the fact that the rules did not provide
for a coercive process to secure attendance of witnesses did
not 111ean that there could be no proper hearing 'vithout it.
Held, further, that under s. 68C it was open to the State
Government to take over any area or route to the complete or
partial exclusion of other persc. .is and there ""'as no discrimina ..
tion in the present case for routes completely covered, by the
route taken over stand on a different footing fron1 the routes
only partially covered.
ORIGINAL jum~mc'l'ICN:

## Text

1962
Dtumher, 14.
220 SUPRE:\\.fE,COURT REPORTS [1964-] VOL·
NEHRU MOTOR TR.ANSJ,>ORT COOPERA)'IVE SOCIETY, .L;rD., ~ND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,
K. N. WANCJioo, K. C. DAS GuP'd, and
J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
Motor Vehicle-Publication of acheme-Scheme, if cpnstittdionully valid-Motor Veliicles Act, 1939 (4 af 1939), as. (J~O,
68D (3)-Rajasthan .State Raad
Transpo~t Services (Development) Rules, JflGO, r. 3...,.-0anstltution of India, Arts. 14, 32.
The petitioners were holders of St;ge·carriag-e pr.rmits on
Jodhpur-Bilara and Bilara-Ileawar routes.
The Raja.•than
Roadways published a. draft scheme which provided for taking
over the transport service on-..the J odhpur- '1Hilra-Beawar-Aj·
mer route bY the Roacl\vays and also for La1'ing ove.r three over·
lapping routes or
po1~tions thereof
whiclt
were · entirely on
Jodhpur-1lil:ira-Beawaf>-Ajp1er road and the names of the
permit-holders on these three OvCrlapping routes \vlth their
per1nits \\'ere aLc;-, specified for cancellation and no other trans ...
port vehicles were toply on the route' to be taken over. The
petitioners filed objection and
challeng~c:! the scheme on the
ground of disc1 iminat ion before the Legal Re1ne1nbrat'lcer a ... -
son1e overlapping rou!es \Vere not notified.
He J;,elJ that even
though ~these routes \\'ere not specifieO in the draft ~chcme and
no notice had been given to the permit holders thereof, it was
o'pen to hiin to render the permits ineffective with rcsp'cct to
these rotJtes-also and
p~ssed orderS accordingly. 'l'hc pcrmitholders affected uy the order of tlie Legal Remembrancer filed
writ petitions in the High Ct>urt. 'fhc I-Iigh Court clircctecl
the Legal lle1nen1branccr to go into th~ n1atter again and to
leave the question of tlic twelve partially overlapping routes
for a subsequent schCmc.
'fhc cffecr of the decision of the
LegaJ Reme-,nbrancer considered in th~ light of the decision of
the High Court was that all the twelve partially overlapping
routes were left out of the scheme and on.Iv the three route~
notified in the draft·schcn1e
were
affected.
The
present
petition is directed against his decisi'Jn approving the scheme
as modifierl by him and phblished on August 31 , 1962. ln
this Court it was urged (I) that the procedure of approving a
part ·of the sclleme oner. and 'lnother part !~ter was illrgal ;
i S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
221
(ii) that the approval of the scheme by the Legal Rem·
embrancer after abdication of his own judgment was not a
valid approval ; (iii) that the Legal Remembrancer ought to
have given a fresh hearing ab initio to the objectors ; '(iv) tliat
thcrl! \Vas uu proper hearing and (v) that there \vas 9iscrimination, as the operators of the tweh-e 1fartially overlapping
r<-ute' were left out of the scheme.
·
Held, that as the twelve overlapping routes were never
included in the draft scheme, the approval given to the draft
scheme without touching these routes cannot be called an
approval of a part of the scheme.
Held,
furthd that in the present case the order of the
High Court was analogous to a remand order and therefore,
the decision of the Legal Remembrancer must he treated as a
fresh decision and not a review of his earlier decision and there ·
was nu abdicatiou by him of his functions.
Held, further, that when the ohjectors had been given full
opporlunity to lea<l evidence on the previous occasion \Vhich
was still
there for
the Legal Rememhrancer to take into
account, it was sufficient for hin1 to hear the objector's argu·
mcnts. If it is borne in mind that the order passed by the
High Court in the proceedings \Vas in the nature of a ren1and
01dcr, this objection iuust fail,
Held, further, that the fact that the rules did not provide
for a coercive process to secure attendance of witnesses did
not 111ean that there could be no proper hearing 'vithout it.
Held, further, that under s. 68C it was open to the State
Government to take over any area or route to the complete or
partial exclusion of other persc. .is and there ""'as no discrimina ..
tion in the present case for routes completely covered, by the
route taken over stand on a different footing fron1 the routes
only partially covered.
ORIGINAL jum~mc'l'ICN: Writ petition No. 142
of Hl62.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of
India for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
B. CMiangani and B D. Sl1arnu1, for the
pet:tioners.
1962
Jvellru 11Jator TranJ•
porrCo-operaliVI
So::icty Ltd.
••
Sf<llc of Uojasi/1at1
I
.1222 SUPREME COUR lf REPORTS t1964] v6n.
l •J'.j
'HJ62. December 14.• The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
,...,
. W ;1-NCHOO, J.-'J;'his p·eiition \lnder· ~rt. '3;i of
t9e Oo9stitutioir challenges the, constitutionality of a
scheme finalised ,•under s. 68D (3) of the ·Motor
Vehicli;s Act, No. IV of.1939, (herein;;ifter referred
t& as th,c Act) in H,1e State cifRajasi'lnan. Thi'!. peti;
tion~rs , arc holders of .stage-carrfage permits on
Jodhpur-Bilara and Bilar.a-Beawar routes.
A draft
scheme was published under s. 680 of the f.ct by the
Rajasthan Roadways, which is a State Trapsport
UndeFtaking, ·(hereinafter referred to a5 the Road-_
~ays),' on January 26, 11J6I. It provided for·tak1n"'g
ov~r of, the 'transport service on.the Jodhpur-Bilara,
~eawar·Ajmer route by the Roadway~. Further it
provided for taking over three overlapp5ng routes or'
portions thereof which were entirely on J odhpur:
Bilar,l;l-B.eawar-Ajmer rqad, najpely, Jodhpur-Bilara,
.8ilara,,.1Jeawqr, and Beawar-Ajmer, and as required
by J. 3 of the Rajasthan State· Road Transpelrt
Services (Development) Rules, 1960,
(he~einafter
referred to as the Rules), the names of the permit-.
holders''on these three over lapping routes with their
pe,rmits were ,..also specified for cancellation, and no
transport vehicles otlier than the vehicles of the Road-'
ways were to ply on the route to be taken over.
The
\ISual time was also given for filing objections to~all
tltose whose interests were affected by the draftschemc. The petitioners filed objections under s.68D
of, ~he Act, which were Iicard by the Legal Remcmoranccr tu the Government of Rajasthan, he being.
the person appointed to hear and decide the objections. The objectors wanted to lead evidence and
dlc:r' produce some witnesses· but some witness.es to.
whom summonses were issued did not turn up and
1 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REi'ORTS
223
the objectors wanted the issue of coercive processes
against them. The Legal Remembrancer however
refused this on the ground that he had no power to
issue coercive process.
As the objectors did not produce any further witnesses, the arguments were heard
and the Legal Remembrancer gave his decisions on
May 31, 1962.
One of the main points then raised before the
Legal Remembrancer was that there were a dozen
other overlapping routes which were not touched by
the . scheme, and therefore the scheme was bad on
the ground of discrimination. It may be mentioned
that these overlapping routes were not completely
overlapping the route to be nationalised, though the
vehicles plying on those twelve routes had to pass
over part of the .Jodhpur-Bilara-Beawar-Ajmer road.
It was urged on behalf of the Roadways before the
Legal-Remembrancer that the intention was to
render ineffective the permits on these twelve routes
also insofar as they overlapped the route to be taken
over, though these. route> were not mentioned in the
draft-scheme like the three routes which were completely covered by the .Jodhpur-Bilara-Beawar-Ajmcr.
route and no notice was apparently·• given to the
seventy-two permit-holders on these twelve partially
over-lapping routes.
The Legal Remembrancer held
that even though these routes were not specified in
the draft-scheme and no notice had been given to
the permit-holders thereof, it was open to him to
render the
permits ineffective
wit!! respect to
these routes also and proceeded to pass orders accordingly.
Thereupon five writ petitions were filed in the
High Court of Rajasthan by the permit-holders on
the three routes which had been notified in the draftscheme as well as by some uf the permit-holders of
the twelve partially overlapping routes which had
not
been
notified
but
which
had
been
1962
Nlhru Molor Trans·
port Co·np1raliti1
Soci11:7 Ltd.
v.
Stale of Rajasthan
Wanchoo, J,
196i
Ntlvw Jt.lotor Trans.
pori Co·operntii"e
So<i11J μd.
v.
Stal• •f'l!f!i.11Sl/ian
Wallehoo, f·
224
SUPREME COURT REPOR ts [1964] VOL
affected by the order _Qf..the Legal Remembrancer. Two
main points w<:re urged before the High Court insupport of the challc1igc to the validity of the ~rhcnu:
ns Jinally published on June iu, UJu2.
lu tlic first
place, it was urged that the State Government whrn
publishing t-he scheme as required by s. GSD(il) of the
Act had made ccrMin changes in it beyond the decision of the Legal Remembrancer and thercfOTe-thc
final scheme as published was invalid as it was not
open . .to the State.. Government to make any changes
in ·the scheme as approved by the Legal Remembran ·
cer. Secondly,it was urged· on behalf of the op_erators.on the twclve·pai:tially overlapping routes which
had .not been notified in the draft scheme ;hat it was
not op cu to the Legal Remembrancer to affect their
interests when/ their routes w~re .not specified in ll~e
draft scheme tlnd ·they had been given ncr ·notice
thereof. The /High Court accepted both these contentions. It was of the .opinion that it was not open
to the State Gqvernment to make any modification in
tlie. dcciswn of the Legal R_emembranccr and inasmuch
as that had been done the final scheme as published
was invalid. It also held that as the twelve partially
overlapping routes were not notified in the draftschcmc and no notice had been given to the permitholders thereof, it was not open to the Legal Remem--
brancerlfo pass any orders with respect to them. It
therefore set aside the scheme as published under
s. 68D (3) of the Act.
Finally, the High Court observed that as the scheme as published, was not the
scheme as apwoved by the Legal Remembrancer and
as the decision of the Legal Remembrancer becomes
final when it is published, it was open to the Legal
Remembranceer to modify his decision, even though
he may'have signed and pronounced it.
The Legal
Remembrancer was thus directed to go into the m,1tter
again and leave the question of the twelve partially
overlapping routes fqr a subsequent scheme. The
final scheme as published under s. 68D (a) of
the Act was set aside and the Regional Transport
'
I
)
I
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
225
Authority was directed not to implement it until it was
regularised in accordance with law.
The matter then went back to the Legal Remembrancer who considered the draft.scheme in the
light of the decision of the High Court and after
hearing further agruments disposed of the objections.
The main effect of his decision was that all the twe:
Ive partially overlapping routes were left out of the
scheme and only the three routes notified in the draftscheme which were completely covered by the rpute
Jodhpur-Bilara-Beawar-Ajmer, were affected.
The
decision of the Legal Remembrancer approving the
scheme as
modified
by him was published on
August 31, 1962, and the present petition is directed
against that decision.
The decision of the Legal Remembrancer is
being challenged before us on the following grounds:-
( l) A draft-scheme under the Act has to be approved as a whole and the procedure of approving a part
of the scheme once and another part later is illegal,
and therefore, the approval given to the draft-scheme
by the Legal Remembrancer does not result in app-
. roving the scheme, as required by Jaw.
(2) It was not open to the Legal Remembracer
to review his order dated May 31, 1962 even after
the decision of the High Court, and insofar as the
Legal Remembrancer eid so in obedience to the order
of the High Court he abdicated his own judgment,
and the approval therefore after such abdication of
his own judgment, is no approval in law.
(3) As the scheme as published on June 16, 1962
was set aside by the High Court, it was the duty of
the Legal Remembrancer to give a fresh hearing ab
initio to the objectors which he did not do, and therefore the approval accorded by him to the draft-scheme
1162
N1hru MotOY r,..,.
port Co·optraliN
Sod1ty Lt4.
v.
St.11 oJ lltif"""""
Wuoo,J.
1962
• Vthru MotGr Tr11n1•
port Co·op1ratic1
SO<Uty LU.
v.
Statt of Raja.JtluPz
U'ano\oo, J.
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
after the judgment of the High Court is no approval
in law .
( 4) Hearing requires taking of evidence; but as
the Legal Remembrancer expressed his inability to
compel attendance of witnesses, there was no hearing
as contemplated by law, and therefore the approval
of the draft-scheme without a proper hearing is no
approval in law.
( 5) There was discrimination inasmuch as the
operators of the twelve partially overlapping rout!s
were left out of the scheme.
Re. (1) &: (2).
There is no doubt that a draft-scheme has to
he considered as a whole and all objections to it have
to be decided before it can be approved 1 ·y the
State Government or by the officer appointed in that
behalf, and the Act does not envisage approving of a
part of the scheme once and putting it into effect and
leaving another part unapproved and left over for
enforcement later.
It is also true that the Act does
not provide for review of an approval once given by
the Legal Remembrancer, though he may be entitled
to correct any clerical mistakes or inadvertent slips
that may have crept in his order. It is also true
that the Legal Remembrancer when considering the
objections has to exercise his own judgment subject
to any directions that the High Court might give
on questions of law relating· to a particular draftschcmc.
But we do not think that this is a case
where the draft-scheme has been approved in part
and another part of it hi15 been left unapproved to
be taken up later; nor is this a case where the Legal
Remembrancer abdicated his own judgment or reviewed his earlier decision when he proceeded to r~con
sidcr the matter after the High Court had set aside
the scheme as published under s. 68D (3) of the Act
0n J uni" l 6, Hl62.
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
227
Let us sec what the draft-scheme was meant to
provide in this case.
As we have already indicated,
the draft-scheme was published in order to take over
the Jodhpur-Bilara-Beawar-. \jmer route.
It also
provided for taking over all the three complete! y
overlapping routes, namely, Jodhpur-Bilara, BilaraBeawar, and Beawar-Ajmer routes, and also portions
thereof falling entirely on this road from JodhpurAjmer. There was no indication in the draft-scheme
for taking over what arc called partially overlapping
routes, on I y parts of which overlapped on the
.Jodhpur-Bilara-Bcawar-Ajmer road. These partially
overlapping routes were of two kinds. In some cases
one terminus was on Jodhpur-Bilara-Beawar-Ajmer
road while the other terminus was not on this road. In
other cases, both the termini of the overlapping routes
were not on this road, though a part of the route fell
on this road.
Rule a of the Rules provides. for indicating all such overlapping routes as are intended
to be affected and the draft scheme in the present
case only indicated three routes which were completely on this road namely, Jodhpur-Bilara, BilaraBeawar, and Beawar-Ajmcr, and was not concerned
at all with the other overlapping routes, where overlapping was only partial. It was therefore in our
opinion unnecessary to bring in the question" of the
twelve partially overlapping routes when o~jections
to this draft scheme were being considered.
There is
no doubt that the Roadways was also responsible for
the introduction of this confusion for it seems lo have
been urged on its behalf, when the objections were
considered on the first occasion, that these partially
overlapping routes were alw meant to be covered by
the draft scheme, even though they were not mentioned in the draft scheme as required by r. :1 of the
Rules and no notice had been issued to the permitholders of those routes.
The petitioners also raised a
point with respect to these overlapping routes, and
that is how on the first occasion, the Legal Remembra11-cer held that even though these
routes had
19&2
..Nehtu Motor Trans.
port Co·9fJerative
Society Ltd .
••
Statt of Rajasthan
Wanchoo, J.
1962
Jf1ltru MntOT Traru.
pt.wt Cu-operafil-1
Snd,.~v Ltd.
..
Stott flj Rairutlum
IYanchoo, J.
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964) VOL.
not been included in the draft scheme and no notice
had been given to the permit-holders thereof, it was
open to him to pass orders with respect thereto and he
proceeded to render the overlapping part of these
routes ineffective. It is obvious from a perusal of
the draft scheme that these twelve partially overlapping routes were not includtd in it at all and they
were brought in only because of the objection raised
by the petitioners and the reply of the Roadways
that they were meant to be included. That is why
when thr writ petitions were decided by the High
Court, it pointed out that the scheme did not intially include the partially overlapping routes.
The
High Court theri went on to observe that if the Legal
Remembrancer thought fil to include these routes in
the scheme also, he should have given notice to all
concerned to file their objections.
With r-_•spcct, it
seems to us that this observation of the High Court is
not correct.
If the scheme did not include the
partially overlapping routes-as it undoubtedly did
not, in spite of what the objectors might have said
and what the Roadways might have maintained
before the
Legal
Remembrancer
on
the first
occasion-it was not opr.n to the Legal Remembrancer
to include these overlapping routes in the scheme at
all and he could not <lo so even if he had given notice
to the permit-holders on these overlapping routes.
The qurstion therefore whether the final approval
of the draft scheme as published on August :JI ,I 96~
is an approval of a part of the scheme only, leaving
another part of the scheme unapproved and therefore
liable to enforcement later, can only admit of one
answer, namely, that the approval was of the scheme
as a whole.
The contention therefore on behalf of
the petitioners that part of the scheme has been
approved and the rest of it has been left unapproved,
can have no force on the facts of the present case.
The twelve overlapping routes were never meant to
be affected by the scheme which left them untouched.
The contention that only part of rhe scheme has been
l S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
229
approved appears to have been based on the fact
that these routes have not been rendered ineffective
as to the overlapping part. But as these routes were
never included in the draft sclli,me, the approval
given t9-the ·draft scheme without touching these
routes cannot in
the circumstances be called an
approval of a part of the scheme.
Nor do we think that there is any force in the
contention that the Legal Remembrancer abdicated his judgment when going irito the question on
the second occasion after the judgment of the High
Court. The order of the Legal
Remembrancer
dated August 17, 1962 shows that he reconsidered
the entire matter after hearing further arguments and
there can be no doubt that he was exercising his
own judgment when he finally
decid~d to approve
the draft scheme with certain modification. What
the Legal Remembrancer has done in this case is to'
reappraise the evidence in the light of the legal
position indicated by the High Court.
Nor do we
think that there is any substance in the argument
that the order of the Legal Remembrancer dated
August 17, 1962, is a review of his earlier order
dated May 31, 1962.
No question of review of
that order arises for that order was in effect set aside
when the High Court set aside the final scheme as
published on June 16, 1962. It is true that that
publication made certain further modifications into
the scheme as approved by the Legal Remembrancer
but that in our opinion makes no difference to the
fact that the order of the High Court setting aside
the final scheme as published on .June 16, 1962 put
an end to the order of the Legal Remembrancer
dated May 31, 1962 also.
This
argument as to
review has been raised because of the observation in
the judgment of the High Court that the scheme as
finally published on June 16, 1962 was not the
decision of the Legal Remembrancer because of the
changes made in it by the State Government and
1962
}lehrt1 A10t.?r Transport Cu-ope•atiue
Society Ltd.
v.
Sfri~ rif &jast!tan
Wanchoo, J.
!
'
1961
NiMu Molor Trans.
porl Co·opunlit:t
Society LIJ.
v.
Stall •f RajaJt"°"
Wanoloo, /,
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964) VOL.
therefore it was open to him to modify it, though he
might have signed his decision and pronounced it.
With respect, we consider that this observation is not
correct. It may be that the State Government liad
no authority to modi(y the decision of the Legal
Remembrancer but when the High Court set aside
the finally approved scheme as published on June Hi,
I 962, it meant the decision of the Legal Remembrancer dated May :H, 1!!62, also came to an end,
for the final scheme as published on June I 6, I 962
was undoubtedly based on it, even though there were
further changes in that decision at the time of
publication.
In the present case the order of the
High Court was analogous to a remand as understood
iu courts of law.
What
the Legal Remembrancer
did on the second occasion was to reappraise the
evidence iu the light of the law laid down by the
High Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
dcHsion of the Legal Rcmemliranccr on August Ii,
I !Jfi2, is a review of his earlier decision <lated
May 31, 19!i2.
It must be treated as a fresh
decision, after J!ic High Court h'td set aside the
final sch~me as published on June Hi, l!lfi:.!. Though
therefore the proposition put forward on lichalf of
the pefr.ioners may be accepted as correct, there is
no scope for applying the principles contained in
these propositions to the facts of this case. The
contention therefore that the scheme as finally
published on August 31, 1!!62 is bad because it
militates against these principles must be rejected.
lle. (J) & (4).
It is urged that after the High Court set aside
the final scheme as published on June 16, 1962, the
Legal Remembrancer should have given a fresh
hearing ab initio and that he did not do so. It is
further urged that in as much as there is 110 provision
in the Rules for compelliug the attcndaucc of witnesses whom an objector might like to produce, there
i s.c.R..
SUPREME cotJ.R T REPOR ts 231
can be no effective hearing of the objection, and
therefore
the
scheme as
finally
published on
August 31, 1962, is invalid. It is not disputed that
the Legal Remembrancer did give a hearing to the
objectors after the order of the High Court. What is
urged however is that the objectors should have been
allowed to give evidence afresh before the Legal
Remembrancer finally disposed of the objections.
We are of opinion that though the result of the
order of the High Court was to set aside the order
ofthe, Legal Remembracer dated May 31, 1962,
it cannot be said that the order of the High Court
wiped out the evidence which the objectors had
given before the Legal Remembrancer on the first
occasion. We
have already mentioned the two
grounds on which the High Court set aside the final
sc::heme as published on June 16, 1962, and those
grounds had nothing to do with the evidence which
was already produced. In our opinion, it was open
to the Legal Remembrancer to take that evidence
into account and it was not necessary that evidence
should be given again, particularly when no fresh
issues arose; nor was the Legal Remembrancer bound
to take fresh evidence simply because the final scheme
as published on June 16, 1 \l(i2 had been set aside on
account of certain technical and Legal defects.
When the objectors had been given full opportunity
to lead evidence on the previous occasion which was
still there for the Legal Remembrancer to take into
account, it was sufficient for the Legal Remembrancer to hear the objectors' arguments in full
after the ordrr of the High Court in the light of the
observations made by it, and the petitioners therefore
cannot have any grievance on the score that they were
not given any hearing after the order of the High
Court. If it is borne in mind that the order passed
by the High Court in the proceedings was in the
nature of a remand order, all these objections will
plainly be untenable.
1962
Nehru Motor Trans·
port Co·ofurative
So:iety Ltd.
v.
State of Rojastha11
W anc!zt,,, J.
1962
N1hru Motor 'liruu·
port Co-operatite
Socit17 Ltd.
v.
Stott of Raia.srhan
IY1111chc.io, J,
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [lllG4) VOL
As to the contention that the Rules do not pro·
vide for compelling the attendance of witnesses and
all that the Legal Remembrancer can do is to sum
mon witnesses who may or may not appear in an:i·
wcr to the summonsr.s, it is enough to say that the
proceedings before the Legal Remembrancer though
quasi-judicial arc not exactly like proceedings in
court.
In proceedings of this kind, it may very well
. be concluded when a witness is summoned and doei;
not appear, that he docs not wish to give evidence,
and that may be the reason why no provision is made
in thr Rules for any coercive process.
We think in
the circumstances of the hearing to be given by the
Legal Remembrancer, it is enough if he takes evidence
of the witnesses whom the objectors bring before
him themselves and if he helps them to secure their
attendance by issue of summonses.
But the fact that
the Rules do not provide for cocrci ve processes does
not mean in the sper:ial circumstances of the hearing
before the Legal Remembrancer that there can be nc•
proper hearing without such coercive processes. Wear«
therefore of opinion that the Legal Remembrancer diet
give a hearing to the objectors after the order of th<:
High Court and that in the circumstances that hearing was a proper and suJlicient hearing. The challenge
therefore to the validity of the scheme a~ p11blished
on
June 16,
I !IC:!,
on
this ground must be
rejected.
Re. (:j).
Lastly we come to the question of discrimination.
The argument is based on the fact that the
twelve partially overlapping routes to which we have
already alluded have not been touched by the scheme.
That is undoubtedly so.
\\"c have already pointed
out that in the case of some of these routes one terminus is on the Jodhpur-Bilara·Bcawar-Ajmer road
while the other is not on this road.
In some cases
neither termini
is on this road and only a part of
l S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
233
the route overlaps this road. The argument is that
as the permit-holders on these partially overlapping
routes have not been touched by the scheme, there is
discrimil'ation inasmuch as the permit-holders on the
three routes which were totally overlapping the route
which was being taken over, have been completely
excluded. We do not think that this amounts to discrimination. It may be pointed out that under
:,;, 680 it is open to take over any area or route to the
complete or partial exclusion of other persons.
Therefore, it was open to the State Government to
take over this route only and exclude those who may
be plying completely on this route or parts thereof
and unless it can be shown that others who are similarlv situated have not been excluded from the scheme
there can be no question of discrimination. In our
opinion it cannot be said that those permit-holders
whose routes were completely covered by the .route taken over stand on rhe same footing as those whose routes
were only partiaUy covered by the route taken over. It
may very well have been conside~ed that in the first
instance only those permit-holders will be excluded
whose routes are completely covered by the routes
taken over; and if that is permissible under the Jaw it
cannot be said that that would amount to dis..:rimination when there is an obvious distinction between
routes completely covered by the route to be taken
over and the routes partially covered by the route to
be taken over. We have been informed that since
this scheme was approved steps have been taken even
to exclude those permit-holders whose routes are
partially covered by making their permits ineffective
over the overlapping part of the route. But that
apart, we can see no ground to uphold the plea of
discrimination in the present case, for routes completely covered by the route taken over stand on a
different. footing from the routes only partially cove·
, red. The contention therefore that the final scheme
as published on August 31, l!J62 is bad because it discriminates in this manner, must be rejected.
i9G2
Nehru Mofo1 T'rans·
port Co-operative
Society Ltd.
v.
'
State of Rajastlzan
1962
"Vehru Motor TrOtrS•
port Co·of1tr•lir1
Socitt) Lid.
v.
SllJU of Raja.""1it
Wanchoo, J.
1962
D"""b"', .H.
231
SUPREME COURT REPORts [1964] Vot.
\Ve therefore dismiss the petition but in the
circumstances of this case pass no order asto costs.
THE HINDUSTAN TIMES LT1).,
NEW DELHI
v.
THEIR WORKMEN
VICB VERSA
(P. B. GAJENDRAOADKA.R, K. N. WANCHOO,
K. C. DAS GuPTA and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
Industrial Di~pute--Fi•·atiun of waye structure-Factor.•
lo be co11sidered-Fair IVage-Lidng IVagc-l!:xtent of power to
interfere under Art. 136 with w~gc •cale fixed by TribunalDearness allowance on basis of ,,/iJiny ocafcs-/nterim agreement
r<ganling interim relief not to be
ignured-Lea.1:r, rule.s-Grutu.
ity-J!.ietireni.ent 1tqe-Retrusper:tit·c t1pr:rr1ti1J1l t1f azvard-J)c/hi
Shops & Jtstablisliment Act, 1954 (Ddlii 7 of 1Vii4)-1!:111ployw'
Stale
In.rnrance Act, 1948 (34 of 1!148)-lwlu..•trial Di8putes
Act, 1947, (U of 1!147).
The Chief Commissioner, Delhi, referred an L1dwtrial
dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi,
which gave its award on March 16, 1959. Both the appellant
and the respondents were dissatisfied with the award and they
came to this Court by Sp<.'Cii.l leave. The award was challenged
by the appellant with regard to scales of pay, dearness allowance,
adjustments, leave rules, gratuity and
rctro.<1pectivc
effect of the award. The respondents attacked the award as
reg~rds the working hours, l•ave rules and retirement age.
Ile/a, that while social justic demand• that workmen
should get a fair share of the national income which they help
to produce, it has also to be seen that that docs not result in
the drying up of the source of national income itself.
lnroada