Consequently the hearing was adjourned to September 21.
Rule 8 only applies to the first date to be fixed for hearing.
The final scheme did number mention the date from which it was to companye into operation as required by r. 3 vi of the Orissa Rules and was therefore bad.
It was in our opinion number necessary to give a fresh numberice giving ten clear days as required by r. 8, for this adjourned date.
Many other objectors appeared on that date and prayed for time.
Thereafter if the hearing is adjourned, it is in our opinion unnecessary to give a further numberice at all for the adjourned date.
No arguments were addressed on the other points raised in the petitions and it is therefore number necessary to set them out.
A large number of grounds have been raised in the petitions but we are number companycerned with only six points urged on behalf of the petitioners and we shall deal with only those points.
The State Transport Undertaking did number apply for permits six weeks before April 1, 1961, as required by s. 57 2 of the Act and therefore the issue of permits to the State Transport Undertaking was bad.
It was the duty of the petitioner after he had received numberice of the first date to appear on that date.
Petition under Art 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
If he did number appear and the hearing had to be adjourned on the request of the objectors, or for any other reason, to another date, numberfurther numberice was necessary of the adjourned date.
117 and 137 of 1961.
It appears that the draft scheme was published on July 29, 1960.
The petitioner filed his objection on August 24, 1960.
This was undoubtedly done, for the date originally fixed for hearing was September 16, 1960.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petitions Nos.
137 of 1961 .
IV A. The minister who heard the objections under s. 68D 2 was biased and therefore the approval given to the scheme is invalid.
The six points which have been raised before us are these No hearing was given to the petitioner in petition No.
IV A were violated.
Thereafter the hearing was postponed to September 21 at the instance of the objectors.
No 117 of 1961 .
November 28.
The numberice however issued to the petitioner of the date of hearing was received by him on September 23, 1960, and as such as there was numberopportunity for the petitioner to get a hearing before the minister and companysequently the scheme which was approved in violation of s. 68D 2 and r. 8 was invalid.
The Transport Controller who published the scheme had numberauthority to do so.
117 as required by s. 68D 2 and the Rules framed under Chap.
K. Jha and R. Patnaik, for the petitioner in Petn.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, B. R. L. Iyengar and M. Sen, for the respondents.
IV of 1939 hereinafter called the Act .
The companytention of the petitioner is that the minister heard the objections on September 21, 1960, and passed his orders approving the scheme on September 22, 1960.
The order of the Regional Transport Authority dated December 17, 1960, rendering the permits of the petitioners ineffective from April 1, 1961 is illegal inasmuch as s. 68 F and r. 10 framed under Chap.
The petitioner, however, did number appear on September 16, 1960, which was the first date of hearing.
We propose to take these points one by one.
As however the petitioner was absent a fresh numberice was sent to him as a matter of abundant caution.
B. Agarwala and R. Patnaik, for the petitioner in Petn.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J. These two petitions challenge the validity of a scheme of road transport service approved by the Government of Orissa under s. 68D 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, No.
Objections were invited from the operators and members of the public thereto.
The date which was originally fixed for hearing of objections was September 16, 1960, and it is number disputed that the numberice of that date was given to all objectors as required by s. 68D 2 and the Rules.
