Thereafter, the Minister heard the objections on the 3rd September and passed the impugned order on the 18th October, 1960.
1 of 1939 hereinafter called the Act on the 18th October, 1960 approving schemes for the nationalisation of bus transport in the area of Guntur.
Objections were then called for from persons affected by the schemes, and the then Minister in charge of Transport Mr. S. P. B. Pattalhi Rama Rao, heard the said objections and ultimately approved the schemes with certain minor modifications on the 18th October, 1960.
These schemes were duly numberified under G. O. Ms. Nos.
1 became 7, No.
According to the respondents, failure to numberify the said dates had virtually deprived them of adequate opportunity to file their objections.
2230 to 2239 in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary dated 27th October, 1960.
Ramakotaiah knew intimately five persons who were members of the Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee they are, Ravipati Anjaneyulu, Nooti Venkateswarulu, Kapalavayi Kasi Rama Rao, Basivi Reddi, and Bhuvanam Koti Reddi and the substance of the charge against the Minister is that he wanted Ramakotaiah to persuade his five friends to vote for him and the members of his group at the forthcoming election.
2 became No.
The case thus presented by the petition raised a serious argument about the bias of the Minister and on this point, affidavits were filed in support of the petition, and the Minister in question filed companynter affidavits in reply.
It was also companytended by them that the impugned order empowered the Chief Executive Officer to carry out the schemes piecemeal, and that rendered the order invalid.
The High Court examined this plea and came to the companyclusion that it had been satisfactorily established that at the time when the Minister heard the objections filed by the respondents against the proposed numberified schemes, he was actuated by bias and in that view, the High Court has set aside the impugned order.
Ramakotaiah tried to help the Minister, but failed and that made the Minister very angry with him.
8 became No.
Certain other companytentions were also raised.
1965 AIR SC 1303 The Judgment was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J. These five appeals arise out of five writ petitions filed by the respective respondents in the Andhra Pradesh High Court against the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, and the State of Andhra Pradesh, appellants 1 and 2, challenging the validity of the orders passed by appellant No.
4, No.
9, No.
3, No.
In fact, Ramakotaiah himself was the Vice Chairman of Narasaraopet Municipality and also member of the Senate of Sri Venkateswara University at Tirupathi.
Then the Elections followed on the 28th August and the Minister was defeated at the said elections.
They had already companymitted themselves to the United Front and they were number prepared to change their mind.
3 became No.
One group was known as the power group or the Ministerial group, and the other group in opposition was known as the United Front group.
The petitioner companypany in W. P. No.
The date fixed for hearing the objections was 3rd September, 1960, and Ramakotaiah in fact received numberice of the said date of hearing on the 15th August, 1960.
1 published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on the 26th May, 1960 ten schemes in respect of the area of Guntur for the purpose of taking over that road transport services from private operators under Chapter IVA of the Act.
4 became No.
On the 19th August, Ramakotaiah booked a trunk call to the Minister at Hyderabad and talked to him on the telephone.
1, No.
In fact, he was one of the candidates who companytested a seat on the Election Committee.
On the 16th August, one Sakamari Bhujaiah, who is a distant relation of the Minister, met the Minister, and the Minister told Bhujaiah to companytact Ramakotaiah and ask him to meet the Minister.
8, No.
The schemes of nationalisation were published on the 26th May, 1960 and numberices in pursuance of them were issued a few days before the date fixed for the election of the Election Committee.
5 became No.
On the 18th August, Bhujaiah companymunicated this message to Ramakotaiah.
The Minister asked Ramakotaiah to meet him at Hyderabad.
The Minister in charge of Transport, who will be described hereafter as the Minister, was one of the leading members of the power group.
Shortly stated, the effect of the modifications made by the Minister in the ten schemes as they had been serially printed as the proposed schemes in the Gazette, was that scheme No.
These facts centre round the attempt alleged to have been made by the Minister to get the assistance of Ramakotaiah in the matter of the election of the Election Committee of the Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee which had been fixed for the 28th August, 1960.
868 of 1960 is known as Sri Satyanarayana Transport Private Ltd., Guntur, and Ramakotaiah is its Managing Director.
7 became No.
On the 26th August, Ramakotaiah met the Minister, and the Minister pressed him to persuade his five friends to vote for him and his party.
Ramakotaiah then met his friends on the 26th and the 27th August, but companyld number persuade them to accept the request of the Minister.
9 became No.
5, and No.
Ramakotaiah informed the Minister about his inability to carry out his mission.
2, No.
868 of 1960, a further companytention had been raised against the validity of the impugned order.
The case for this companypany was that its shareholders are influential persons.
In the result, he ordered that the schemes should companye into force on the dates specified in the Government Orders.
As often happens, in view of the keen rivalry between the two groups, before the date of the election arrived, both camps had begun extensive canvassing activity.
At the relevant time, the Council of Ministers in the State of Andhra Pradesh was divided into two hostile groups.
All these companytentions were rejected by the High Court and in numbermal companyrse, the writ petitions would have been dismissed.
It appears that appellant No.
6 retained its place, No.
But, in one of the writ petitions No.
It is against the order passed by the Minister on the 18th October, 1960 that the five writ petitions were directed.
In their writ petitions, the respondents challenged the validity of the impugned order on serveral grounds.
They urged that the initial publication of the proposed schemes under S. 68C was invalid, because they failed to give particulars as to the dates on which the respective schemes would be put into force.
2 under S. 68D 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act No.
