Allahabad High Court
Radha Krishna Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Others on 27 November, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(1)AWC723, AIR 1998 ALLAHABAD 159, 1998 ALL. L. J. 991, 1998 (1) ALL WC 723, 1998 (2) ALL CJ 1093, 1998 ALL CJ 2 1093
Author: B.K. Sharma
Bench: B.K. Sharma
JUDGMENT R.R.K. Trivedi, J.
1. In this petition, learned standing counsel has accepted notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent No. 4 U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) is represented by Shri Rajiv Sharma. The writ petition was filed on 20.1.1997, Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, was granted time to file counter-affidavit by the next date of listing. The writ petition was directed to be listed on 31.1.1997. By order dated 4.3.1997, the case was directed to be listed showing the name of Shri Rajiv Sharma as counsel for respondent No. 4 and respondents were directed to file counter-affidavit. The case was thereafter listed on various dates but counter-affidavit has not been filed by the respondents. As sufficient time has already been granted to file counter-affidavit, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits for deciding the writ petition finally at this stage against which the learned counsel for the respondents have no objection.
2. The facts necessary for appreciating the controversy are that in 1971 a scheme was proposed under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by the State Government for Introducing the operation of the vehicles of the Corporation in exclusion of others. Objections were filed. However, the Scheme was finalised and published on 24.8.1995. This gave rise to a series of litigation and the dispute went upto the Apex Court where by an interim order, status quo was directed to be maintained by the Supreme Court. During this period, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force. It is stated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that Hon'ble Supreme Court on 7.2.1994 left the matter to be decided by the authorities under the provisions of the new Act. It is stated that in view of the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State Government, in exercise of powers under Section 102 of the Act, proposed a modification of the Scheme, the English translation of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Its close reading will show that the notification has been published under clause (3) of Article 343 of the Constitution. It has been published in exercise of powers under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 102 of the Act. The second paragraph of the Notification is relevant for deciding the controversy in hand, hence it is being reproduced below:
"Now, therefore, in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act No. 59 of 1988), the Governor proposes to make modification to the extent mentioned in column 4 of the Schedule below in the approved scheme published in the notification mentioned in column 2 in respect of the. routes mentioned against it in column 3 of the said schedule and publish the same as required under subsection (2) of the said section for information of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and persons likely to be affected by the proposed modification and with a view to inviting representations, if any, from them."
3. From a perusal of the Schedule, it appears that by the proposed modification, the existing operators holding permit numbers mentioned therein were also to be included along with the Corporation to operate buses in the routes mentioned in column 2. After the aforesaid notification, objections were filed by the Corporation and other interested persons. After hearing them, the hearing authority passed order dated 15.3.1996, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The hearing authority approved the modification of the scheme. However, in operative part of the order, the hearing authority while rejecting the objections of the Corporation and other persons and taking a view that the modifications are in the public interest, also directed the publication of the modified Scheme under Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and under Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939. It is stated by the petitioner that he made applications on 19.4.1996, 20.11.1996 and 4.12.1996 for publication of the modified scheme. However, no steps have been taken either for publication of the modified Scheme or for its implementation.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent Nos, 1 to 3 in not publishing the modified scheme as approved by the hearing authority on 15.3.1996 in the Official Gazette, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Shri L.P. Naithani, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the approved scheme is a law as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Ram Krishna Varma v. State of U. P. and others, 1922 (2) SCC 620, hence any change or modification in the scheme will also be a law and in order to give effect to it, its publication in the Official Gazette Is necessary. In support of this submission, learned counsel has also placed reliance in Rule 7 of the U. P. State Road Transport Service (Development) Rules. 1974. Shrl Naithani has further submitted that publication of the modified Scheme as approved by the hearing authority is also imperative under the provisions contained in Clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution. It has been submitted that official language of this State is Hindi in Dev Nagri script as provided under Uttar Pradesh Official Language Act. 1951 and publication of the modified scheme in the Official Gazette is necessary with its Hindi translation under Article 348(3) of the Constitution. Reliance has been placed in the case of Jaswant Sugar Mill Ltd.. Meerut v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1962 Allahabad 240 (FB).
6. Learned counsel has further submitted that as the hearing authority has directed publication of the modified scheme in the Official Gazette by a notification and the order of the hearing authority has not been reversed or modified by any statutory authority or the Court, the direction is binding and the State ought to have carried out the direction which has deliberately not been done.
7. Shri Rajiv Sharma and learned standing counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the publication of the scheme is required under Section 100 of the Act. It has been submitted that the provisions of Section 100 shall apply in case of modification of the scheme also and the final publication of the scheme should have been done within a year as required under sub-section (4) of Section 100 of the Act. In substance, the submission of the learned counsel is that if the modified scheme has not been published within a year, it cannot now be published in view of the limitation provided under Section 100(4) of the Act. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Scheme or the modified Scheme cannot be termed as law and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct. For this submission, reliance has been placed In case of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Krishna Kant etc., AIR 1995 SC 1715. Learned counsel has further submitted that as the publication of the modified scheme is barred under sub-section (4) of Section 100, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief prayed in the writ petition.
8. We have thoroughly considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, on the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the following questions are required to be determined by us:
1. Whether in case of cancellation or modification of the Scheme, it is obligatory on the State Government to publish the modified Scheme after its approval by the hearing authority under the provisions contained In Section 102 of the Act?
2 Whether the procedure provided under Section 100 of the Act with special reference to sub-section (4) is applicable in case of cancellation or modification of the scheme under Section 102 of the Act?
3. Whether the direction given by the hearing authority in operative part of its order dated 15.3.1996. was at all necessary and is a binding condition for giving effect to the modified Scheme?
4. To what relief, the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case?
9. Question Nos. 1 and 2 are inter-linked and can be considered and decided together. For deciding these two questions, It shall be appropriate to have an idea of the legislative history with regard to the Introduction of the schemes for operation of the transport vehicles by the Corporation on notified routes and notified areas. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1939). Chapter 4A was Inserted with effect from 16.2.1957 which contained special provisions relating to State Transport Undertakings. Section 68B gave overriding effect to the provisions contained In Chapter 4A of the Act and the rules and orders made thereunder over Chapter 4 of the Act or any other law for the time being in force. Section 68C gave power to the State Transport Undertaking to prepare a scheme for providing a coordinated road transport service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof in exclusion complete or partial of other persons. Such proposal of scheme was required to be published in Official Gazette. Section 68D provided for filing of the objections by interested persons and consideration of the objections by the State Government and for approval of the scheme. Under sub-section (3), such approved or modified scheme was required to be published In the Official Gazette and thereupon It became final and applicable to areas or routes mentioned therein. Section 68E contained provision for cancellation or modification of the scheme which is very relevant for the controversy in hand and is being reproduced below:
"68E. Cancellation or modification of scheme.--(1) Any scheme published under sub-section (3) of Section 68D may at any time be cancelled or modified by the State Transport Undertaking and the procedure laid down in Section 68C and Section 68D shall, so far as It can be made applicable, be followed in every case where the scheme is proposed to be cancelled or modified as if the proposal were a separate scheme :
Provided that the State Transport Undertaking may, with the previous approval of the State Government, modify without following the procedure laid down in Section 68C and Section 68D, any such scheme relating to any route or area in respect of which the road transport services are run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking to the complete exclusion of other persons in respect of the following matters, namely.-
(a) increase in the number of vehicles or the number of trips :
(b) change in the type of vehicles without reducing the seating capacity ;
(c) extension of the route or area without reducing the frequency of the service: or
(d) alteration of the time-table without reducing the frequency of the service.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the State Government may, at any time, if it considers necessary in the public interest so to do. modify any scheme published under sub-section (3) of Section 68D after giving-
(i) the State Transport Undertaking, and
(ii) any other person who, In the opinion of the State Government, is likely to be affected by the proposed modification, an opportunity of being heard in respect of the proposed modification."
10. Chapter 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) contains special provisions relating to State Transport Undertaking. In this Chapter, the provisions of Chapter 4A of Act of 1939 have been reproduced with certain modifications. Under Section 99 of the Act of 1988, instead of State Transport Undertaking, now the State Government has been conferred power to formulate and propose a scheme and publish the same in the Official Gazette and in newspaper. Section 100 contains provisions for the disposal of objections filed by interested persons by the State Government and for approval or modification of the proposed scheme. Sub-section (3) provides for publication of the scheme in the Official Gazette and in newspapers and on such publication the scheme becomes final and applicable to the area of routes. Sub-section (4) provides a limitation of one year for publication of the scheme from the date of the approval, and if the scheme is not published within the period so provided it shall be deemed to have lapsed. Section 102 of the Act of 1988 contains provision for cancellation or modification of the scheme which is very relevant for deciding the questions in hand, hence it is being reproduced below :
"102. Cancellation or modification of scheme.--(1) The State Government may. at any time, if it considers necessary, in the public interest so to do. modify any approved scheme after giving :
(i) the State Transport Undertaking ; and
(ii) any other person, who, in the opinion of the State Government, is likely to be affected by the proposed modification, an opportunity of being heard in respect of the proposed modification.
(2) The State Government shall publish any modification proposed under sub-section (1) in the Official Gazette and in one of the newspapers in the regional languages circulating in the area in which it is proposed to be covered by such modification, together with the date, not being less than thirty days from such publication in the Official Gazette, and the time and place at which any representation received in this behalf will be heard by the State Government."
11. From a comparison of Section 68E of the Act of 1939 and Section 102 of Act of 1988, it is clear that the provisions contained in Section 68E (1) have been omitted by the Legislature meaning thereby that the procedure laid down in Sections 68C and 68D which are contained in Sections 99 and 100 of the new Act has not been made applicable in case of cancellation or modification of Section 102 of the Act of 1988. Instead, a new sub-section (2) has been added which provides that the State Government shall publish any modification proposed under sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Act of 1988 in the Official Gazette and in one of the newspapers in the regional languages circulating In the area In which it is proposed to be covered by such modification. However, after receiving all the representations and hearing of the same by the State Government, no further publication has been contemplated at all for giving effect to the approved modification of the scheme. The legislative intent is very much clear and manifest from the provisions contained in Section 102 that the publication of the proposed modification in the scheme under sub-section (2) of Section 102 of Act of 1988 has been thought sufficient and after hearing the representations to the modification proposed, fresh publication in the Official Gazette and the newspaper was not considered necessary. The reason behind giving up the second publication on hearing of the representations in case of modification of the scheme is obvious as the modified scheme was already published in the Official Gazette and the newspaper under Section 100 of the Act of 1988. Thus, one publication of the modification under sub-section (2) of Section 102 has rightly been found sufficient. The application of the provisions contained in subsections (3) and (4) of Section 100 of the Act of 1988 has thus been Intentionally omitted. From a perusal of the provisions contained in Sections 100 and 102. It cannot be Inferred even by implication that after hearing of the representation, modification of the scheme was required to be again published in the Official Gazette and the newspaper.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that publication of the approved modification is obligatory under Article 348(3) of the Constitution. However, the submission does not appear to be correct for two reasons : Firstty, the proposed modification published on 20.3.1995, annexure 1 to the writ petition, was an English translation of the modification and appeared to be under the provisions of clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution, hence publication of the same notification again does not appear necessary at all : and secondly, clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution only provides that if the Legislature of the State has prescribed any language other than English for use as official language in the State, and for use in Bills, Acts, Ordinances or in any order, rule, regulation or bye-laws, a translation of the same In the English language published under the authority of the Governor of the State in the Official Gazette of that State shall be deemed to be authoritative text thereof in the English language under this Article. There is nothing in clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution creating any obligation to publish the English translation and it has been left to the discretion of the Governor of the State.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that any scheme published under Section 100 of the Act of 1988 has statutory force and is a law as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Ram Krishna Verma and others (supra). Thus, the modification of such scheme shall also carry the same status and for giving effect. It is required to be published in the Official Gazette. There is no doubt about the legal status of the scheme published under Section 100 and the modification under Section 102 of the Act that they have statutory status and are law.
14. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the scheme published under Section 100 or modified under Section 102 of the Act of 1988 cannot be treated as law. He has placed reliance in the case of Rajasthan State Transport Corporation and another v. Krishna Kant (supra), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the standing orders approved under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 have no statutory force. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents does not appear to be correct. The standing orders contain the terms and conditions regulating the relations between employer and employee. They are arrived at and are formulated in form of a document and are approved by the certifying officer, under the provisions of Act No. 20 of 1946. Thus, the standing orders cannot be equated with a scheme published under Section 100 of the Act of 1988 which takes away the legal right conferred on any person to obtain permit under the provisions of Chapter 5 of the Act of 1988 and can create a monopoly in favour of the Corporation to the exclusion of other persons. Such effect can only be given by a document having statutory force. The Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of Ram Krishna Verma In this connection observed as under :
"The consistent law laid down by this Court is that the draft sanctioned under Section 68C and approved under Section 68D of Chapter 4A of the repealed Act (Chapter 6 of the Act) is a law and it has overriding effect over Chapter 4 of the repealed Act (Chapter 5 of the Act). It operates against every one unless it is modified. It excludes private operators from the area or route or portion thereof covered under the scheme except to the extent excluded under the scheme itself. The right of private operators to apply for and to obtain permits under Chapter 4 of the repealed Act (Chapter 5 of the Act) has been frozen and prohibited."
15. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted. However, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the modification of the scheme is also law, its publication is necessary can also not be accepted as Section 102 of the new Act does not make it necessary to have a second publication of the same modification. The question may be considered from another angle also. It is not disputed that the proposed modification of the approved scheme under sub-section (1) of Section 102 has been published in the Official Gazette. If the State Government after hearing the representations filed does not approve the proposed modification, no further publication is necessary. However, in case the representations are rejected like in the present case, and the modifications in the approved scheme are found to be valid and legal, they have already been published in the Official Gazette and no useful purpose could be served in repeating the same exercise again. However, in a situation where the State Government after hearing the representations, further modifies or alters the modification in the approved scheme proposed under sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Act of 1988, the situation may be different. However, as the aforesaid situation is not involved in the present case, we are not expressing any opinion and the question is left open for being decided in an appropriate case.
16. The last question is as to whether the direction given by the hearing authority in the operative part of its order dated 15.3.1996 to publish the modified scheme was necessary and is a condition precedent for giving effect to the modified scheme. We have already found that the second publication of the modification of the approved scheme is not legally necessary. The direction given by the hearing authority has to be considered in the context and reference it has been given. In fact, before the hearing authority, ft was pointed out on behalf of the Corporation that the Hindi version of the modification published in the Gazette is confusing and from a reading of the same, it appears that on the routes in question, neither the U.P.S.R.T.C. nor the private operators shall be entitled to ply buses. The hearing authority has considered this objection in detail and has found that from reading the Hindi and English versions of the Notification together, the alleged confusion is removed and there will be no difficulty in Implementing the modified scheme. Clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution contains a deeming provision that the English translation published in the Gazette by the Governor shall be deemed to be the authorised version. It is not disputed that the English version has already been published which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition and it does not contain any confusion. The direction of the hearing authority to publish the correct Hindi version of the modification is thus for the purpose of correction of the record as he has already recorded a finding that there remains no confusion if both English and Hindi versions are read together. He has also recorded a finding that the present disputes are pending since 1971 and public interest demands that the modified scheme may be Implemented without any further delay.
17. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in our opinion, the direction given by the hearing authority is not a condition precedent for implementation of the modified approved scheme. However, it shall be necessary for the State to carry out the direction.
18. The modified scheme was published under sub-section (2) of Section 102 on 20.3.1995. It was approved by the hearing authority on 15.3.1996. It cannot be disputed that the modified approved scheme in question has created a right in favour of the existing operators mentioned in the notification to obtain permits for plying their buses on the routes in question. However, respondent No. 3 took the stand that their application for grant of permits cannot be entertained as the direction of the hearing authority to publish the private approved scheme has not been carried out and consideration of their applications was deferred as is clear from the letter dated 16.12.1996 vide resolution No. 9, dated 23.11.1996. In our opinion, the order on the part of respondent No. 3 was not justified. There is also nothing on record to explain the conduct of respondent No. 1 as to why the direction of the hearing authority contained in the order dated 15.3.1996 was not complied with. The authorities even ignored the findings of the hearing authority that it is expedient and necessary in the interest of general public to approve the modification in the scheme as after 1971 the situation has altogether changed and there is requirement of more transport services. In our opinion, the requisite notification as directed by order dated 15.3.1996 ought to have been published without delay.
19. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed with the following direction :
(1) Respondents are directed to implement the modified approved scheme in question without any further delay ;
(2) Respondent No. 1 is directed to publish the correct Hindi version of the modified approved scheme as directed by respondent No. 2 within a month from the date a copy of this order is filed before it. However, it is made clear that the publication of the Hindi version shall not be taken to be a condition precedent for implementing the modified approved scheme which has been found legal and valid by the hearing authority by order dated 15.3.1996.
20. There will be no order as to costs.