N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, C. C. Kasliwal, Advocate General of Rajasthan, Khan Singh and D. Gupta, for the respondents.
K. Nambiar, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh, M. K. Ramamurthi and C. Agarwala, for the appellant petitioner.
On January 9, 1961, the Regional Transport Authority informed the appellant that his permit was cancelled, as from January 26, 1961, or such later date from which the buses of Rajasthan State Roadways begin to operate on the above mentioned route.
This application was also rejected by the officer with the observation that he was bound hand and foot by the decision of the Rajasthan High Court and if there was anything wrong in the interpretation given by the High Court the remedy lay elsewhere.
The matter then came up for companysideration on November 23, 1960.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 3, 1961, of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, in Civil Writ Petition No.
April 14.
In the meantime, the appellant unsuccessfully moved the Rajasthan High Court, and his prayer for leave to appeal to this Court was also rejected.
The appellant then applied for special leave to appeal to this Court which was granted and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
IV A of the Act and provided inter alia for framing of schemes, hearing of objections, determination and payment of companypensation, and other incidental matters.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J. These two companynected matters arise out of an order approving a scheme framed under Chap.
The approved scheme was then published on December 12,1960.
The appellant made objections to the draft scheme within the time allowed by the numberification thereof.
This decision was given on November 9, 1960.
The Rules were framed for carrying out the purposes of Chap.
The draft scheme came up for companysideration before the officer appointed to hear objections on November 21,, 1960.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Thereafter the officer gave a hearing to the appellant in the sense that he heard arguments on behalf of the appellant and approved the draft scheme by his order dated December 7, 1960.
IV A of the Motor Vehicles Act, No.
135 of 1961.
1 of 1961.
226 by some bus operators before the Rajasthan High Court challenging the companystitutionality of s. 68 D of the Act and the legality of the Rules framed by the State Government.
The appellant was plying a bus between Jaipur and Ajmer on a permit granted to him for three years by resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, dated December 16/17, 1958.
IV of 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act and will be disposed of together.
An application was made before him that the appellant should be permitted to give evidence on points of fact which were narrated in the application in order that the officer may be in a position to decide the objections justly.
In August, 1960, the State Government promulgated rules under s. 68 1 of the Act, called the Rajasthan State Road Transport Services Development Rules, 1960 hereinafter called the Rules .
It appears that in the meantime an application was made under Art.
The State Government appointed the Legal Remembrancer to hear and decide the objections under r. 7 of the Rules.
The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these.
A draft scheme was published on September 7, 1960, for taking over the Jaipur Ajmer route.
This application was rejected by the officer on the ground that there was numberprovision in the Rules for recording of evidence of witnesses.
On that date another application was made in which it was said that the appellant wanted to lead evidence to show that the draft scheme must be rejected in its entirety, and it was companytended that the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court to the effect that it was number open to the officer to cancel a draft scheme was incorrect.
