Case: Birajmohan Das Gupta &amp; Another Vs. State of Orissa &amp; Others

1. These two petition challenge the validity of a scheme of road transport service approved by the Government of Orissa under S. 68-D (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, No. IV of 1939 (herein after called the Act). A large number of grounds have been raised in the petitions but we are now concerned with only six points urged on behalf of the petitioners and we shall deal with only those points. No arguments were addressed on the other points raised in the petitions and it is therefore not necessary to set them out.

Reasoning: 4. On these facts we are of opinion that there is no force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner What R. 8 of the Orissa Rules requires is that ten days clear notice has to be given of the time, place and date of hearing to all objectors. This was undoubtedly done, for the date originally fixed for hearing was September 16, 1960. Thereafter the hearing was postponed to September 21 at the instance of the objectors. It was in our opinion not necessary to give a fresh notice giving ten clear days as required by R. 8, for this adjourned date.Rule 8 only applies to the first date to be fixed for hearing. Thereafter it the hearing is adjourned, it is in our opinion unnecessary to give a further notice at all for the adjourned date. It was the duty of the petitioner after he had received notice of the first date to appear on that date.If he did not appear and the hearing had to be adjourned on the request of the objectors, or for any other reason, to another date, no further notice was necessary of the adjourned date. It is true that notice was given to the petitioner of the adjourned date; but that was in our opinion as a measure of abundant caution. The rule does not however require that a fresh notice must be given of the adjourned date of hearing also. In the circumstances we reject thisare of opinion that there is no force in this contention of bias based on this reply of the minister to a question put in the Legislative Assembly. The Government was asked when it was intending to take over the privately operated motor routes and its reply was really a matter of policy namely that it was the policy of the Government to take over all the routes eliminating all private operators from April 1, 1961. This did not mean that even if, for example, the scheme was not ready or if the scheme put forth was found by the Government to be open to objection, the Government would still force through the taking over of the privately operated routes from April 1, 1961. This answer was merely an indication of the Governments policy, namely, that the Government was intending to take over all privately operated routes from April 1, 1961; but whether in actual fact that all the routes would be taken over on that date would depend upon so many circumstances including finance. It cannot be said that this announcement of the Governments policy in answer to a question put in the legislative assembly meant that the Government was determined whatever happened to eliminate all privately operated routes by April 1, 1961. We are, therefore, of opinion that the minister cannot be said to be personally biased because this policy statement was made by him in answer to a question put in the legislativeappears, however, that the petitioners also have no personal knowledge of any such determination on the part of the minister. They based their allegation on an alleged talk between the minister and two citizens of Cuttack, namely, a municipal councillor and an advocate. No affidavit, however, of the two persons concerned has been filed to support this allegation. In the circumstances we are of opinion that it was not necessary for the minister to file an affidavit for the allegation on behalf of the petitioners was also based on hearsay and it has been contradicted by similar evidence on behalf of the State. It would have been a different matter if the two persons concerned had made affidavits from personal knowledge. There is, therefore, no force in this contention and we are of opinion that it cannot be said on the facts of this case that the minister wasare of opinion that the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise these points for the first time in arguments before us, for there is no mention of these points in their petitions. It appears that in an affidavit filed in connection with stay, something was said on these two points; but the stay matter was never pursued and never came up before this Court for hearing. In the circumstances there was no reply from the State Government to these allegations. We are of opinion that the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise these points now for the first time in arguments when they did not raise them in their petitions and consequently rejectwill assume that R. 3 (vi) requires that when the final scheme was published the date should have been mentioned. It seems to us that the rule so read has been substantially complied with, for the notification publishing the final scheme refers to the draft scheme and says that the draft scheme is approved and there is no mention of any modification. In the circumstances it would in our opinion be not unreasonable to read the date April 1, 1961, incorporated in the final scheme by reference to the draft scheme. It would have been a different matter if the draft scheme also did not contain the date of operation. We are, therefore, of opinion that there has been substantial compliance with R. 3 (vi), and the final scheme cannot be said to be bad for non-compliance with the rule. We, therefore, reject thisis, however, no force in this contention, for S. 68C requires that after the State Transport Undertaking has formed the opinion required thereunder and prepared a scheme it shall cause the scheme to be published. The Transport Controller is the chief officer of the State Transport Undertaking and we see nothing irregular if he publishes the scheme prepared under S. 68C. The section lays down that after the scheme has been prepared in the manner provided thereunder, the State Transport Undertaking shall cause it to be published, which means that some officer of the Undertaking will have it published in the gazette. In the present case, the chief officer of the Undertaking has got it published and this in our opinion is in sufficient compliance with S.find that this point was also not taken in the petitions. All that was said in the petitions was that the Transport Controller was only in-charge of the transport services in the State and there was no State Transport Undertaking in the State of Orissa within the meaning of Cl. (b) of S. 68A of the Act. This case has been abandoned; what is now contended is that even though there may be a State Transport Undertaking in Orissa that Undertaking was not satisfied that it was necessary to take action in the manner provided in S. 68C. This in our opinion is a question of fact and should have been specifically pleaded in the petitions so that the State may have been able to make a reply. In the absence, therefore, of any averment on this question of fact we are not prepared to allow the petitioners to raise this point in arguments before us. In the circumstances we reject this contention also.