671960
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of fundamental rights
633 A V Viswanatha Sastri and B B L Iyengar for the petitioners
C K Daphtary Solicitor General of India R Ganapathy Iyer and R H Dhebar for the respondents
September 8
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A SUBBA RAO J
This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution to quash the order of the first respondent dated April 28 1960 and the scheme dated April 20 1960 and to direct the first respondent to deal with the application of the petitioner for renewal of its permit in accordance with law
The petitioner was doing business of motor transport in Bombay State for over 20 years
It had four permanent stage carriage permits granted some years ago and renewed from time to time to ply buses on the following routes i Yeotmal Umerkhed 2 return trips
ii Yeotmal Pusad 4 return trips
The term of the latest permits expired on December 31 1959
About four months prior to the expiry of the permits the petitioner applied on August 24 1959 for the renewal of the permits under section 582 of the Act IV of 1939 hereinafter called the Act
On October 29 1959 the State Transport Department published its proposed scheme for the nationalization of the road transport services in respect of an area which included the routes of the petitioner
On November 9 1959 the petitioner wrote a letter to the Secretary the Regional Transport Authority Nagpur asking him why its application for renewal of the stage carriage permits had not been published as required by section 57 of the Act
It also expressed its apprehension that the application was not published by the Regional Transport Authority with a view to assist the State Transport Department in ousting it from the said routes and that the Authority was creating a situation in order to force the petitioner to accept temporary permits under section 62d of the Act 
The Secretary the Regional Transport 634 Authority by his letter dated November 11 1959 replied to the effect that the application for renewal had been published on November 8 1959 and that the said application would be considered before the expiry date and that no question of issuing temporary permits would arise
On November 19 1959 the Assistant Manager of the State Transport Department on behalf of the State Transport Department filed applications before the Regional Transport Authority for issue of permits to it in respect of the said two routes among others
It was mentioned therein that as per the notification published in the Bombay Government Gazette dated October 29 1959 the Provincial Transport Services proposed to take over the aforesaid routes from January 1 1960
The Provincial Transport Services also filed objections against the renewal of the permits in favour of the petitioner
On December 10 1959 the said applications were published in the Gazette and it was notified therein that representations if any should be submitted on or before December 15 1959 and that the said objections along with the applications for permits would be considered in a meeting to be held by the Regional Transport Authority in the month of December 1959 at Nagpur or at a later date which may be notified in due course
On December 21 1959 the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority intimated to the petitioner that in the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority scheduled to be held on December 31 1959 it would not be possible to consider its applications for renewal due to  heavy agenda 
It was also suggested to it to apply for the grant of temporary permits pending renewal in good time so that they could be issued before the due date
The petitioner on the same date replied to that letter wherein it pointed out that  the heavy agenda mentioned in your letter is we hold a design to cover your attempt to ad Vance the cause of the Provincial Transport Services U G O Nagpur 
Without prejudice to its rights the petitioner applied for temporary permits as directed by the Authority On December 29 1959 temporary permits were issued for one month from January 1 635 1960 and thereafter they were extended for another month and made available upto March 31 1960
The next meeting of the Regional Transport Authority scheduled to be held on February 5 1960 was adjourned to February 24 1960 and on January 22 1960 the Chief Minister of Bombay issued notices to the petitioner and others that objections to the proposed scheme would be heard on February 24 1960 but on the said date the applications were not disposed of on the ground that the matter was sub judice in the High Court of Bombay
On March 17 1960 the Provincial Transport Services filed a fresh application before the Regional Transport Authority under Ch
IVA of the Act for the grant of permits for plying buses on the routes mentioned therein
It was also brought to the notice of the Regional Transport Authority that the Provincial Transport Services desired to operate tile routes in question from May 1 1960 or any other date as may be fixed by the Regional Transport Authority
Presumably the second application was filed as the earlier application was filed not under Ch
IV but Under Ch
IVA of the Act on the basis of the proposed scheme
On March 31 1960 the Regional Transport Authority met again but the applications for renewal of permits filed by the petitioner were not taken up for consideration
It is suggested that as 30 days had not expired from the date of the filing of the applications by the Provincial Transport Services the petitioner s applications could not be taken up for consideration
On April 14 1960 the Chief Minister of Bombay heard the objections and on April 19 1960 the scheme with modifications was duly approved by the Government and published on April 20 1960
The approved scheme covered only the routes in respect of which only tem porary permits were issued and excluded the routes in regard to which pucca permits were issued
The approved scheme included the petitioner s routes
On April 20 1960 the applications were again adjourned to April 291960
On April 26 1960 the petitioner moved this Court under Art32 of the Constitution and on April 28 1960 the petition was dismissed as premature
636 On the same day even though the Regional Transport Authority was informed that this Court was moved by the petitioner its renewal applications were rejected on the ground that the scheme was approved by the Government
The present petition was filed on April 29 1960 for the aforesaid reliefs
The main contention of learned counsel Mr A V Viswanatha Sastri for the petitioner is that the Regional Transport Authority was actuated by mala fides in the disposal of the applications for renewal of the permits and that though under the provisions of the Act it had no alternative but to renew the permits of the petitioner it adjourned the matter from time to time with an evil design to enable the Government to approve the scheme
In that situation he contends the proper course is to set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and direct it to dispose of the petitioner s applications for renewal of permits as on the date when they were filed
To appreciate this argument it is necessary to notice some of the relevant provisions of the Act
Under section 58 of the Act  A stage carriage permit or a contract carriage permit  shall be effective without renewal for such period not less than three years and not more than five years as the Regional Transport Authority may specify in the permit 
Clause 2 provides for the renewal of permits on application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit
Section 57 prescribes the procedure in the matter of the disposal of applications for permits
Section 57 1 enables the filing of an application for a permit at any time and clause 2 of that section says that such an application shall be made not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall take effect and under cl
3 thereof on receipt of such an application for permit the Regional Transport Authority shall publish the application in the prescribed manner calling for representations to be made on a date not being less than 30 days from the date of publication
After hearing the said objections and representations the applications will be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of 637 the Act
Section 62 enables the Regional Transport Authority to grant permits without following the procedure prescribed under section 57 to be effective for a limited period not in any case to exceed four months to authorize the use of a transport vehicle temporarily pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit
The second proviso to that section states that a temporary permit under the said section shall in no case be granted more than once in respect of any route or area specified in an application for the renewal of a permit during the pendency of such application for renewal
Section 68F enables the State Transport Undertaking in pursuance of an approved scheme to apply in the manner specified in Ch
IV for a stage carriage permit in respect of a notified route and on such an application the Regional Transport Authority shall issue such a permit to the said Undertaking notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in Ch
Under cl
2 of that section for the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified area or notified route the Regional Transport Authority may by order refuse to entertain any application for the renewal of any other permit to cancel any existing permit or to modify the terms of any existing permit
Section 68G prescribes the principles and method of determining compensation in respect of the permits cancelled or modified
The foregoing provisions so far relevant to the present enquiry may be summarized thus An operator of a stage carriage may apply for renewal of his permit not less than 60 days before the date of its expiry the said application will be disposed of as if it were an application for a permit and he will be given preferential treatment the other conditions being equal the Act does not prescribe any outer limit for disposal of the application for renewal of a permit for its disposal would depend upon the applications filed by others and the time required for complying with the conditions laid down in section 57 but the requirement that the application shall be filed not less than 60 days before the date of the expiry the injunction that pending an application for 638 renewal of a permit temporary permit shall not be given more than once and the time limit of four months for a temporary permit fixed in section 62 indicate that though there is no statutory prohibition the application is expected to be disposed of ordinarily before the term of the permit expired or in case of unavoidable delay within a reasonable time thereafter after a scheme has been approved if the State Transport Undertaking applies for a permit the Regional Transport Authority shall issue the permit to it and for the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme the said Authority is authorized to refuse to entertain an application for renewal of any other permit or cancel or modify any existing permit if the Regional Transport Authority cancels or modifies a permit compensation is payable to the operator affected
In the present case the permits expired on December 31 1959
The petitioner filed applications for renewal on August 24 1959 and they were rejected on the ground that there was an approved scheme on April 28 1960
On December 29 1959 temporary permits were granted for one month and after the expiry of those permits another set of temporary permits was issued for another month ending with March 31 1960
It is true that under the second proviso to section 62 temporary permits could not have been granted more than once but a transgression of that provision by the Regional Transport Authority does not affect the question raised
As the provisions of the Act do not prescribe any time limit for the disposal of an application for renewal of permits we cannot hold that the Regional Transport Authority acted without jurisdiction in rejecting the applications some months after the date of the expiry of the terms of the permits
If there was any inordinate delay in the disposal of an application it was open to the affected party to ask for a mandamus to direct the appropriate Authority to dispose of the petition within a reasonable time
But no such step was taken by the petitioner though it filed a writ petition in the High Court for other reliefs
639 The next question is whether the Regional Transport Authority exceeded its power in rejecting the applications
In this context it will be convenient to read the relevant portions of section 68F which read Section 68F 1 Where in pursuance of an approved scheme any State transport undertaking applies   for a stage carriage permit the Regional Transport Authority shall issue such permit to the State transport undertaking   2 For the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified area or notified route the Regional Transport Authority may by order a refuse to entertain any application for the renewal of any other permit
 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that section 68F applies only when an application for permit is made by a State Transport Undertaking in pursuance of an approved scheme and that in the present case as the application was filed by the State Transport Undertaking before the scheme was approved the provisions of the section were not attracted
It is true that under section 68F the Regional Transport Authority is bound to issue a permit to a State Transport Undertaking only  if it applies in pursuance of an approved scheme
That is why in the present proceedings the Authority did not issue any permit to the State Transport Undertaking but sub section
2 of section 68F is not conditioned by any such limitation
The Regional Transport Authority is authorized for the purpose of giving effect to an approved scheme to refuse to entertain an application for renewal of any other permit
This power does not depend upon the presentation of an application by the State Transport Undertaking for a permit
This power is exercisable when it is brought to the notice of the Authority that there is an approved scheme and to give effect to it the application for renewal cannot be entertained
By the time the application for renewal came to be disposed of admittedly the scheme had been approved by the Government of Bombay and the routes in question were included in the said scheme
Therefore 82 640 the Authority was within its rights not to entertain the applications filed by the petitioner
It is contended that the word  entertain  refers to an application filed for the renewal of a permit after the scheme was approved and that the said provision has no relevance to an application for renewal made before that date
The word  entertain  may mean  to receive on file or keep on file  and in that sense the Authority may refuse to keep an application on its file by 1
rejecting it either at the time it is filed or thereafter
It does not connote any time but only describes the scope of the duty under that clause
It can only mean that the Authority cannot dispose of the application on merits but can reject it as not maintainable
Any other meaning given to this word leads to an anomalous position for even if the approval of a scheme had been brought to the notice of the Regional Transport Authority it would have to order the renewal of the permit and thereafter it would have to cancel the permit presumably on an application filed by the State Transport Undertaking
We do not think that the legislature used the word  entertain  to bring about that result
A wider meaning of the word  entertain  would enable the smooth working of the provisions of the section and we have no reason to accept the narrower meaning suggested by the learned counsel
We therefore hold that the Regional Transport Authority had power under section 68F2 of the Act in the circumstances of the case to reject the applications filed by the petitioner
The next contention of the learned counsel is that the scheme suffers from the vice of discrimination inasmuch as though it excluded the petitioner from operating on the route between Yeotmal and Umerkhed it allowed others to ply their buses on that route on their way from Akola to Umerkhed or Amravati to Umerkhed
There is no basis for this argument in the affidavit filed by the petitioner is support of the writ petition
We do not think that we are justified in allowing the petitioner to raise the plea for the first time before us
We do not therefore allow it to do so
641 Lastly it is argued that the Chief Minister confirmed the scheme on extraneous considerations not covered by section 68C of the Act
In paragraph 24 of his order the Chief Minister observed  On merits it is quite clear to me that having regard to the resources of the P T section and the amenities that it provides to the public it is in the public interest that the scheme submitted by the P T section Nagpur should be approved 
Under section 68C the question that arose for consideration before the Chief Minister was whether the transport services should be run by the State Transport Under
taking to the exclusion of the petitioner and whether it was necessary to do so in public interest to provide an efficient adequate economical and properly co ordinated road transport service
The Chief Minister found on the material placed before him that it was necessary in the public interest that the scheme submitted by the Provincial Transport Services should be approved
In support of his conclusion he took into consideration that the Provincial Transport Services were in possession of sufficient resources and were in a better position to provide amenities to the public and therefore in public interest they should be given preference over the private operators of buses
We cannot say that the Chief Minister took any extraneous circumstances into consideration in coming to that conclusion
The record in this case is not indicative of promptitude or efficiency in the matter of discharge of the statutory functions by the Regional Transport Authority
The various dates the reasons given for putting off the disposal of the petitions for renewal from time to time and the timing and the manner of the final disposal are such as may legitimately give rise to the allegation that the Regional Transport Authority was not to say the least fair and impartial in the discharge of its duties
A statutory tribunal is expected to discharge its functions fairly and without bias even in a case where the interests of the Government are involved
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case we cannot say that the complaint of the petitioner that the adjournments were not for the 642 reasons mentioned in the orders but were only to give time to enable the Government to approve the scheme may not be wholly unjustified
In the circumstances though we are dismissing the application we are not awarding any costs to the respondents
Petition dismissed


Summary:
By a notification under section 4 of the West Bengal Land Deve lopment and Planning Act 1948 the Government declared that certain plots of land belonging to the respondent were needed for the settlement of immigrants from East Pakistan and for improving living conditions in the locality
Thereafter a second notification was issued by the Government under section 6 read with section 7 of the Act declaring that the plots covered by the previous notification were needed for the same purpose as stated therein
When the Government started to erect structures on the land thus acquired the respondent moved the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the vires of the Act and impugning the legality of the proceedings taken under tile Act
The petition was heard by a judge of the High Court sitting singly who negatived all the contentions of the petitioner and discharged the rule
On appeal by the respondent under the Letters Patent a Division Bench of the High Court held that the Act did not infringe the provisions of articles 19if and 312 of the Constitution
The High Court further held that it was incumbent on the State Government to frame a development scheme after possession of the land had been taken even though the Government was entitled to deal with the land on an emergency basis under section 7 of the Act which runs thus  In cases of urgency if in respect of any notified area the State Government is satisfied that the preparation of a development scheme is likely to be delayed the State Government may at any time make a declaration under section 6 in respect of such notified area or any part thereof though no development scheme has either been prepared or sanctioned under section 5 
The High Court allowed the respondent s appeal and directed a writ of mandamus to issue to the Government requiring them to proceed to frame a development scheme in terms of the Act
On appeal by the State of West Bengal on a certificate granted by the High Court 369 Held that the High Court was in error in issuing the mandamus against the appellants
Section 7 of the Act com pletely dispensed with the statutory necessity of preparing a scheme of development as envisaged in section 5 of the Act in cases where the Government had taken the decision that it was necessary to proceed further with the acquisition proceedings without waiting for a development scheme
No discrimination was implicit in the provisions of section 7 of the Act and no fundamental right of the appellant was infringed either under article 14 or articles 191f and 312 of the Constitution