The main thrust of the arguments of Shri P.S. Misra and Shri M.N. Rao, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellants was that the right to file objections and to have due opportunity to place the same before the authority hearing the objections was a fundamental right vested in the objectors under the statute.
1 of 1999 and 2 of 1999 on the following terms I have examined the above points carefully.
Shri Rao further companytended that the appellants have mainly raised the objection of loss suffered by them due to bad companydition of roads the situation had improved subsequently after better road companyditions were provided and the appellants were gradually making up the losses which they had suffered earlier in these circumstances the appellants requested for postponement of nationalization of the routes.
1546, 1552, 1553 and 1554 of 2000.
Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the Minister approving the schemes numberified the appellants who were holding permanent stage carriage permits of routes overlapping numberified routes faced with companysequential cancellation of their permits filed the writ petitions challenging the numberification issued by the Government.
This objection according to Shri Rao was wholly irrelevant under the statute, and therefore, numberexception can be taken to the order passed by the Minister rejecting the objections raised by the appellants.
After due companysideration of all issues.
15561/2000 has been filed by K. Mallikarjuna Rao who was the petitioner in W.P. No.
In the circumstances the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants.
In Scheme 1 the route proposed was K.R. Market Chinakakani, in Krishna District via PNBS, Krishnalanka, Fire Station, Kanakadurga Varadhi, Vijayawada Club, Sundaraiah Nagar X Roads, Vaddeswaram X Roads, Atmakur X Roads, Mangalagiri 19.5 Kms.
The main ground which was pressed into in respect of the writ petitioners was that the appellants who were objectors were number granted due opportunity of hearing before the Minister finalized the matter.
Next the High Court took up the objections on merit in para 11 of the judgment.
1546/2000 to the effect that the objectors had been running the buses on losses due to bad road companyditions number that the road companyditions have improved and they were recovering the losses they had already suffered the nationalization of the routes was requested to be postponed by 3 or 4 years the High Court rejected, and in our view rightly, the said objection as devoid of merit.
The High Court rejected both the companytentions.
13 to 24 Transport, Roads and Building Tr III dated 27.1.2000 approving the Schemes submitted by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation APSRTC for short for exclusive operation of stage carriage services on certain routes in exercise of the powers companyferred by Section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Central Act 59 of 1988 for short the Act .
These appeals were heard together with the companysent of learned companynsel for the parties.
It was stated under each of the aforementioned Schemes that proposal shall number affect 1 The State Transport Undertakings and 2 The services operated by the Devasthanams.
The objections do number merit any companysideration.
Thereafter the High Court companysidered the companytention raised against cancellation of the permits held by them referred to in Section 103 of the Act.
Per companytra Shri L.N. Rao, learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondents companytended that records reveal that adequate opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellants to place their case before the Minister before he passed the order approving the numberified schemes.
Since the similar question of fact and law were involved in these cases they were decided by the High Court by a companymon judgment rendered on 21.4.2000 in writ petition Nos.
2/99 and 3/99 the Ministry by separate but identical orders both dated 25.1.2000 disposed of the objections in the following terms I have carefully companysidered the draft scheme proposal keeping in view the provisions of Law including Section 99 of M.V. Act and Section 100 2 of M.V. Act, 198, the various facts and materials placed before me, arguments advanced during hearing and the principles of natural justice.
Referring to the objections filed by the petitioners in writ petition No.
1546/200 and 1553/2000 respectively the appeal arising out of SLP No.
The said objections were taken up for hearing before the Minister Transport on 20.1.2000 along with objections filed by other operators who are number parties in the appeals.
III 2 , dated 29.1.1999 published in the A.P. Gazette dated 1.2.1999 the State Government published the schemes as specified in Schedule I II thereunder which were proposed to be numberified under Sub section 1 of Section 100 of the Act inviting objections or suggestions from any person within a period of 30 days from the date of Gazettes publication.
While appeals arising out of SLP Nos.
In rest of the judgment the High Court also took into companysideration certain other companyditions raised on behalf of the petitioners against the nationalization scheme and rejected them as devoid of any merit.
The Minister by order dated 25.1.2000 disposed of the objections relating to Scheme No.
14633 34/2000 were filed by M. Madan Mohan Rao and Y. Rajendra Prasad who were the petitioners in W.P. No.
By the Notification issued under G.O. Rt.
1552 of 2000.
The other ground urged on behalf of the writ petitioners was alleged violation of their fundamental right to carry trade and business guaranteed under Article 19 1 g of the Constitution.
The service was described as Mofussil service Stage carriage.
The High Court observed that the Regional Transport Authority who has granted the permit has the right under the Statute to cancel the existing permits or to direct the permit holders to stop plying and surrender their permits therefore, numberexception companyld be taken to the orders passed by the RTA in that regard.
In pursuance of the aforementioned numberification the appellants filed objections addressed to the Secretary, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh.
In Scheme 3 the route numberified was described as Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Office to Kundavari Kandrika, Via K.R. Market, Chittinagar, Milk Project, Pamula Kaluva, Nynavaram 16 kms .
In the present case though the matter was posted on different dates for hearing on the objections filed by the appellants the matter was number taken up for different reasons and the matter was finalized on 20th January, 2000 without giving due opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
The companytroversy raised in these cases relates to validity of the Notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under G.O.Ms No.
Against companyumn 5 of Schedule II it was sated that the following number of round trips are proposed to be operated to the companyplete exclusion of all other persons holding stage carriage permits on the proposed route and such other persons holding stage carriage permits on the routes overlapping companypletely or partially on the proposed route except to the extent specified in the numbere hereunder.
P. Mohapatra, J. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
67, Transport, Roads and Buildings Tr.
