Case: Ramnath Verma &amp; Others Vs. State of Rajasthan &amp; Others

contention therefore based on the judgment of this Court in Malik Rams case, AIR 1961 SC 1575 must on the facts and circumstances of these appeals be rejected.5. Besides this main objection, three subsidiary points have been raised on behalf of the appellants. It appears that in some cases the objectors served routes which overlapped the three routes which have been taken over. In these cases what has been done is that in some cases the permits of the objectors have been cancelled with respect to the overlapping part of the routes while in other cases the objectors are allowed to ply even on the overlapping part but they have been forbidden to pick up passengers on the overlapping part for destinations within the overlapping part. This latter method is called making the permits ineffective for the overlapping part. Now the grievance of those whose permits have thus been rendered ineffective for the overlapping pint is two-fold. In the first place, it is said that this cannot be done and in the second place, it is said that even if this can be done, the result is that those whose permits have been made ineffective for the overlapping part will not be entitled to compensation under S. 68-G read with S. 68-F (2), So far as the frist contention is concerned, we are of opinion that there is no force in it. Under S. 68-C, it is open to frame a scheme in which there is a partial exclusion of private operators. Making the permits ineffective for the overlapping part only amounts to partial exclusion of the private operators from that route. In the circumstances an order making the permit ineffective for the overlapping part would be justified under S. 68-C,. As to the second point, there is no doubt that where the permit is made ineffective the permit-holder would not be entitled to any compensation under S. 68-G.It is said that this amounts to discrimination between those whose permits have been cancelled for the overlapping part and who would get compensation and those whose permits have been made ineffective and who would therefore not ret compensation. Now we should have thought that the making of the permit ineffective for the overlapping part of the route and allowing the permit-holder to pick up passengers on the overlapping route for destinations beyond that portion of the route would be to the advantage of the permit-holder. In any case, if any permit-holder feels that he would rather have his permit cancelled for the overlapping route and get compensation it is for him to raise that objection before the State Government or the officer hearing objections. If he does not do so, he cannot be heard to say that there is discrimination because his permit has been rendered ineffective and he gets no compensation, for it may very well be that he is still he after off than the person whose permit has been cancelled for the overlapping part of the route. In any case unless facts are brought on the record which would show that in spite of the advantage which the permit holder, whose permit has been made ineffective for the overlapping part of the route, gets by picking up passengers on the overlapping route for destinations beyond that part is not equal to the compensation which he would get in case his permit is cancelled for the overlapping part of the route, there would be no case for discrimination under Art. 14 of the Constitution. In the present appeals no such case has been made out on the facts and therefore we must reject this argument based upon discrimination.6. Secondly, it is urged that in the case of some persons, the permits have neither been cancelled nor made ineffective over the overlapping route and this amounts to discrimination. The reply of the State to this contention is that it was by oversight that permits of certain permit-holders on the overlapping routes have not been cancelled or made ineffective and it is further said that the State would have corrected this oversight but for the stay order obtained from this Court. Discrimination envisaged under Art. 14 conscious discrimination and a discrimination arising out of oversight is no discrimination at all. In the present case the discrimination has resulted because of an oversight which the State is prepared to rectify. It is not the case of the appellants that these few permits- holders are being favoured deliberately for ulterior reasons. We therefore accept the reply of the State that a few permit-holders on the overlapping route have been left out by oversight and that their permits will be dealt with in the same manner as of the appellants, as soon as the stay order passed by this Court comes to an end. There is therefore no force in this contention also and it is hereby rejected.7. Lastly, it is urged that the permits on the Ajmer-Kotah route have been cancelled or rendered ineffective between Deoli and Ajmer only and therefore the permit-holders are entitled to ply between Deoli and Kotah. It appears however that Deoli-Kotah part of the Ajmer-Kotah route is common to Jaipur-Kotah route from Deoli to Kotah and the necessary orders for exclusion of permit-holders have been passed in connection with the Jaipur-Kotah route. The scheme with respect to that route was quashed by the High Court and the matter sent back for re-hearing the objectors in accordance with the decision of this Court in Malik Rams case, AIR 1961 SC 1575 . Therefore, the question whether the permit-holders can ply on the Deoli-Kotah portion of the Ajmer-Kotah route will depend on the decision of the Jaipur-Kotah scheme. If that scheme is upheld on re-hearing, the exclusion will continue. But if that scheme is not upheld, the position may have to be reviewed in connection with this portion of the Ajmer-Kotah route. In the circumstances no relief can be granted to the appellants of the Ajmer-Kotah route at this stage.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It is not in dispute that the appellants never applied before the Legal Remembrancer that they wanted to lead evidence on any point in support of their objections. Only in one writ petition (see C. A. 144 of 1962) it was averred that the Legal Remembrancer did not allow the appellants to lead evidence but that in our opinion is not correct, because the Legal Remembrancer has filed an affidavit to the effect that no such oral request was made to him by the objectors on the three routes with which these appeals are concerned. The High Court therefore was right in saying that it could not be said in these cases that the Legal Remembrancer had shut out evidence relating to the inquiry before him which the objectors desired to produce. But it is urged on behalf of the appellants that as the Legal Remembrancer had already taken one view in the case of Jaipur-Ajmer route it was useless for them to make an application to him for leading evidence for that would have inevitably been rejected in view of the earlier judgment of the Rajasthan High Court referred to above. Even though, this may be so, it is remarkable that that did not prevent the objectors on the Jaipur-Ajmer and Jaipur-Kotah routes from making applications to the Legal Remembrancer that the draft-schemes should be totally rejected and they should be given an opportunity to lead evidence to show this. We fail to see why the appellants could not have taken the same course if they really desired to lead any evidence in order to make out their case for total rejection of the schemes with which they were concerned. It seems to us clear therefore that at the stage when objections were being heard by the Legal Remembrancer there was no desire on the part of the appellants to lead any evidence in support of their objections. Nor does it appear that when the writ petitions were filed in the High Court the appellants claimed that they had desired to lead evidence and had been shut out by the Legal Remembrancer. It was only after the decision in Malik Rams case AIR 1961 SC 1575   that applications were filed taking advantage of that decision and pointing out that the wrong approach of the Legal Remembrancer in holding that it was not open to him to reject the draft-scheme in its entirety had resulted in the appellants not getting an effective hearing. But it does not seem to have been suggested even at that stage (except in one case) that the appellants had desired to lead evidence before the Legal Remembrancer and he had shut them out. Nor was it shown at that stage what evidence the appellants could produce in support of their objections if an opportunity had been given to them. Lastly even in this Court the appellants have not indicated what evidence they could produce in support of the objections raised by them. It seems to us therefore that the appellants never really desired to produce any evidence in order to establish that the schemes as a whole should be rejected and that they put forward the contention that they would have produced evidence if given an opportunity to do so, merely taking advantage of the decision of this Court in Malik Rams case AIR 1961 SC 1575  . Further it seems to us on looking at one of the objections filed before the Legal Remembrancer in C. A. 142 of 1962 as a sample that there was nothing in the objections which really required the giving of evidence and which would show that there could be any desire on the part of the objectors to leadshort a perusal of the objections shows that what was being contended before the Legal Remembrancer was not so much that the draft-schemes were not efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated but that the objectors were providing transport service which was more efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordained than the service proposed to be provided in the draft-schemes. That howerver is hardly a reason for rejecting the draft-schemes in their entirety. Further, a perusal of the order of the Legal Remembrancer summarising the objections which are relevant under S. 68-D shows that the objections were of such a nature not to require the production of evidence in support of them for the questions of act raised there were not in dispute. Therefore, there could be an effective hearing before the Legal Remembrancer if objectors were given a chance to put forward their arguments in support of the objections even without any evidence. We are therefore, of opinion that the appellants cannot in the circumstances take advantage of the decision in, Malik Rams case, AIR 1961 SC 1575   and on the facts and circumstances in the present appeals there is no doubt that they had an effective hearing and the order of the Legal Remembrancer approving the schemes is not in any way vitiated by the wrong view taken by him that he had no power to reject the draft-schemes in their entirety. It seems that he considered the draft-schemes on merits as required by Ss. 68-C and 68-D and held that it was in accordance with the requirements of S. 68-C.The facts that in some cases the number of buses might have been reduced or the fares have been raised or some of the direct services had to be cut down where their routes overlapped with the routes in the three draft-schemes would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the draft-schemes were not in conformity with the requirements of S. 68-C. The contention therefore based on the judgment of this Court in Malik Rams case, AIR 1961 SC 1575   must on the facts and circumstances of these appeals beappears that in some cases the objectors served routes which overlapped the three routes which have been taken over. In these cases what has been done is that in some cases the permits of the objectors have been cancelled with respect to the overlapping part of the routes while in other cases the objectors are allowed to ply even on the overlapping part but they have been forbidden to pick up passengers on the overlapping part for destinations within the overlapping part. This latter method is called making the permits ineffective for the overlapping part. Now the grievance of those whose permits have thus been rendered ineffective for the overlapping pint is two-fold. In the first place, it is said that this cannot be done and in the second place, it is said that even if this can be done, the result is that those whose permits have been made ineffective for the overlapping part will not be entitled to compensation under S. 68-G read with S. 68-F (2), So far as the frist contention is concerned, we are of opinion that there is no force in it. Under S. 68-C, it is open to frame a scheme in which there is a partial exclusion of private operators. Making the permits ineffective for the overlapping part only amounts to partial exclusion of the private operators from that route. In the circumstances an order making the permit ineffective for the overlapping part would be justified under S. 68-C,. As to the second point, there is no doubt that where the permit is made ineffective the permit-holder would not be entitled to any compensation under S. 68-G.It is said that this amounts to discrimination between those whose permits have been cancelled for the overlapping part and who would get compensation and those whose permits have been made ineffective and who would therefore not ret compensation. Now we should have thought that the making of the permit ineffective for the overlapping part of the route and allowing the permit-holder to pick up passengers on the overlapping route for destinations beyond that portion of the route would be to the advantage of the permit-holder. In any case, if any permit-holder feels that he would rather have his permit cancelled for the overlapping route and get compensation it is for him to raise that objection before the State Government or the officer hearing objections. If he does not do so, he cannot be heard to say that there is discrimination because his permit has been rendered ineffective and he gets no compensation, for it may very well be that he is still he after off than the person whose permit has been cancelled for the overlapping part of the route. In any case unless facts are brought on the record which would show that in spite of the advantage which the permit holder, whose permit has been made ineffective for the overlapping part of the route, gets by picking up passengers on the overlapping route for destinations beyond that part is not equal to the compensation which he would get in case his permit is cancelled for the overlapping part of the route, there would be no case for discrimination under Art. 14 of the Constitution. In the present appeals no such case has been made out on the facts and therefore we must reject this argument based uponenvisaged under Art. 14 conscious discrimination and a discrimination arising out of oversight is no discrimination at all. In the present case the discrimination has resulted because of an oversight which the State is prepared to rectify. It is not the case of the appellants that these few permits- holders are being favoured deliberately for ulterior reasons. We therefore accept the reply of the State that a few permit-holders on the overlapping route have been left out by oversight and that their permits will be dealt with in the same manner as of the appellants, as soon as the stay order passed by this Court comes to an end. There is therefore no force in this contention also and it is hereby rejected.Lastly, it is urged that the permits on the Ajmer-Kotah route have been cancelled or rendered ineffective between Deoli and Ajmer only and therefore the permit-holders are entitled to ply between Deoli and Kotah. It appears however that Deoli-Kotah part of the Ajmer-Kotah route is common to Jaipur-Kotah route from Deoli to Kotah and the necessary orders for exclusion of permit-holders have been passed in connection with the Jaipur-Kotah route. The scheme with respect to that route was quashed by the High Court and the matter sent back for re-hearing the objectors in accordance with the decision of this Court in Malik Rams case, AIR 1961 SC 1575  . Therefore, the question whether the permit-holders can ply on the Deoli-Kotah portion of the Ajmer-Kotah route will depend on the decision of the Jaipur-Kotah scheme. If that scheme is upheld on re-hearing, the exclusion will continue. But if that scheme is not upheld, the position may have to be reviewed in connection with this portion of the Ajmer-Kotah route. In the circumstances no relief can be granted to the appellants of the Ajmer-Kotah route at this stage.