Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Tej Ram And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 24 September, 1968 Equivalent citations: AIR1969RAJ233, 1968()WLN19 JUDGMENT Kan Singh J. 1. We have before us a group of 51 writ petitions in which the several writ petitioners challenge the validity of a scheme of nationalisation relating to RaisinghnagarRawatsar route which runs via PadampurGanganagarHanumangarh Junction and Hanumangarh Town. The petitioners seek appropriate writ direction or order against the respondents. As the writ petitions raise identical questions of fact and law, they can conveniently be disposed of together. We may give the relevant facts with reference to Tej Ram's writ petition. 2. By a notification dated 91265 the General Manager of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, hereinafter to be referred as the "Corporation," which is the State undertaking, published a notification under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter to be referred as the "Act" read with Rules 3 and 4 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules. 1965, hereinafter to be referred as the "Rules," inviting objections to be filed before the Secretary to the Government in the Transport Department within 30 days of the publication of the scheme in the Gazette In accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules. On 24166 petitioner Tej Ram filed objections before the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan in the Transport Department. A copy of the objections has been placed on record as Annexure2 and we will have occasion to refer to it a little later. On 28466 the Joint Legal Remembrancer to the Government, who was appointed under the Rules to hear the objections, issued a notification in the Gazette intimating all the objectors that the objections would be heard by him on 15666 at 1100 A. M. in his chamber in the Rajas than Secretariat and the objectors would also be permitted to lead evidence oral or documentary during the aforesaid hearing. It was further mentioned in the notification that in case the objectors desired to lead evidence and produce witnesses they should indicate ine type of evidence supported by affidavit, as to what evidence each witness was expected to give in respect of the scheme. Further the objectors were to intimate the names and addresses of such witnesses to the Joint Legal Remembrancer on or before the date of hearing. The objectors could appear in person or through a duly authurised agent and produce evidence oral and documentary on the aforesaid date. On 15666 when the objections came up for hearing before the Joint Legal Remembrancer, Shri L. L. Sharma, counsel for the objectors, moved an application (Annexure4 on record) praying that the Rajaslhan Stale Road Transport Corporation be directed to file a reply to the objections. After hearing the parties the Joint Legal Remembrancer ordered that the Corporation cannot be compelled to file any reply to the objections as the case was already posted for the objectors' evidence and in the circumslances it was not thought necessary to obtain any reply of the Corporation to these objections. The case was then posted for 7766. On that date, however, the case was adjourned to 20766. On 20766 Shri L. L. Sharma, counsel for the objectors, moved another application questioning the jurisdiction of the Joint Legal Remembrancer to hear the objections. It was urged that in accordance with Section 68D of the Act the Stale Government, that is the Governor, alone could hear the objections and this function could not be assigned to officers subordinate to him in exercise of his powers under Article 166 of the Constitution. It was further urged that the Joint Legal Remembrancer had not been authorised by the State Government under Rule 6 of the Rules to hear the objections. On this application the Joint Legal Remembrancer ordered that as a similar Question had been raised in a writ petition pending before this Court, he would defer his decision on the application till the judgment of the High Court in the pending writ petition. Nothing material happened on some dates of hearing and eventually on 281065 an application was moved by Shri L. L. Sharma (Annexure7) praying that certain documents relating to building of passenger sheds over certain routes be summoned from the General Manager of the Corporation. Similarly, a request for obtaining the timetable of services on other nationalised routes was reauested to be summoned from the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and also the record of breakdown of services over such routes during the years 1965 and 1966 was requested to be summoned. Furthermore, a representation made by one Shri Bhanwarlal Kalabadal, M. L. A., complaining about the services of the Corporation was to be summoned from the Private Secretary to the Chief Minister. So far as oral evidence was concerned. Shri Bhanwarlal Kalabadal, M. L