Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. Section 68-B of the Act clearly states that the provisions of Chapter IV-A and the rules and orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter IV of the Act. This is an overriding provision and if any action is taken under the provisions of Chapter IV-A or the rules and orders made thereunder, then such an action shall not be affected or vitiated for want of compliance of the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act. Section 68-C relates to the preparation and publication of scheme of road transport service of a State Transport undertaking and Section 68-D deals with the procedure for disposing of the objections filed by the persons affected by the scheme published under Section 68-C. Where a scheme is approved in accordance with the provisions of Sections 68-C and 68-D and In pursuance thereof the State Transport undertaking applies to the Regional Transport Authority for a permit in respect of a notified area or a notified route, then Section 68-F comes into play and it provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter IV, the Regional Transport Authority shall issue such a permit to the State Transport undertaking. Sub-Section (2) also provides for certain other actions to be taken by the Regional Transport Authority to give effect to the approved scheme and it may, by order, refuse to entertain any application for the renewal of any other permit, cancel any existing permit or modify the terms thereof so as to render the permit ineffective beyond a specified date; reduce the number of vehicles authorised to be used under the permit; or curtail the area or route covered by the permit in so far as such permit relates to the notified area or notified route Then we come to S 68-G which embodies in itself certain principles and method for determining compensation to the displaced operators Sub-section (2) of Section 68-G provides that a displaced existing operator shall not get any compensation on account of the cancellation or modification of the permit if an alternative route or area in lieu thereof has been offered to him by the Regional Transport Authority and accepted by him. This is an alternative method provided by the law for compensating the displaced operators and the parliament, in order to give effect to this amended proviso of law, thought it expedient in its wisdom to clothe she State Government with a power to expedite the grant of permit on the alternative route and for that purpose introduced Clause (iii) in Section 43 (1) of the Act which reads as follows:

27. Section 68-G (2) is an enabling provision for compensating the displaced operators by offering them alternative routes by the Regional Transport Authority No. procedure has been provided in the Act itself. The Parliament itself thought it advisable to clothe the State Government with a power to issue instructions to the Regional Transport Authority by introducing clause (iii) to Section 43 (1) of the Act. No doubt, as the Supreme Court has held in AIR 1964 SC 1573 that the instructions that shall be issued under the provisions of Section 43 (1) (iii) shall be administrative in nature but this fact that such instructions are of administrative nature would not come in the way of the Regional Transport Authority to grant permits to the displaced operators. Mr. Agrawal has conceded to this extent during the course of arguments that if any route has got to be opened by the Regional Transport Authority were no existing operator is plying his bus, procedure under Chapter IV may not be followed by the Regional Transport Authority and the permits may be granted to the displaced operators under the instructions issued by the State Government under Section 43 (1) (iii) of the Act, but his contention is that if already certain operators are plying their buses on a particular route and if the displaced operators are to be inducted on that route in order to rehabilitate them, then in that event the entire procedure as provided from Sections 46 to 57 shall have to be gone through and no permits can be issued without going into the formalities under the instruction issued by the State Government which are purely of administrative nature. There is no doubt that persons who are lawfullly plying their vehicles on a particular route do acquire some kind of proprietary interest in the transport business on that particular route and when their right is affected by inducting fresh operators thereon, it is necessary under the law as well as on the principles of natural justice that they should be given adequate opportunity to file their objections and they should be heard before any alternative route Is granted to the displaced operators.

It is also admitted by Mr. Agarwal that if the scheme prepared under Chapter IV-A of the Act itself includes a provision for the grant of permits to the displaced operators on some alternative route, then in that case the Regional Transport Authority can issue permits to them without complying with the requirements of the provisions of Chapter TV which relates to the grant of fresh permits, because the existing operators who are thereby to be affected had the opportunity of raising their objections under Section 68-D when the scheme was under preparation, but he con tends that if the scheme does not have any such provision of granting alternative route for the displaced operators then, according to him, the Regional Transport Authority cannot issue permits on the alternative routes with out following the procedure of Chapter IV relating to the grant of fresh permits From these objections it appears that if the existing operators of a route where the displaced permit holders are going to be rehabilitated by granting fresh permits had the opportunity of raising objection against such a grant, then, according to Mr. Agarwal, the Regional Transport Authority can issue permits, if the law so permits without undergoing the procedure provided for the grant of fresh permit in Chapter IV and if such opportunity of raising objection is not available to the existing operators then proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Sections 46 to 57 of the Act are necessary to be taken. This objection of Mr. Agarwal is based on the principles of natural justice and he apprehends that if the Regional Transport Authority is permitted to issue permits to the dislodged operators under the directions issued by the State Government under Section 43 (1) (iii) of the Act without following the procedure laid down for the issue of fresh permits in Chapter IV then the existing operators on that route shall be deprived of their right to have their say in the matter of granting of permits to the displaced operators We are of opinion that this apprehension has no substance in it as Section 43 (1) itself provides a chance of raising objections to the interests affected which term undoubtedly covers the existing operators before the directions are finally issued by the Government According to the proviso to the Section 43 the State Government can issue direction only after a draft of the proposed direction was published in the Official Gazette specifying therein a date being not less than one month after such publication, on or after which the draft will be taken into consideration and any objection or suggestion which may be received has, in consultation with the State Transport Authority, been considered after giving the representatives of the interests affected an opportunity of being heard This proviso clearly contains a procedure for giving opportunity to the interested persons to raise objections or to give suggestions which the State Government is bound to consider in consultation with the State Transport Authority, and while doing so the representatives of the interests affected shall have an opportunity of being heard before the Government. This shows that the instructions under Section 43 (1) (iii) are issued by the Government after giving opportunity to the persons affected of being heard before the State Government and after consulting the State Transport Authority who in the natural course of circumstances is conversant with the conditions prevailing on the routes affected by such instructions.

28. It may be observed that the Act creates a hierarchy of bodies with distinct functions and powers ascending from the Regional Transport Authority upto the State Government Section 68-G (2) provides that the Regional Transport Authority shall offer an alternative route to the displaced operators in order to compensate them for being dislodged from the notified area or route. There is no divergence of opinion on this point that the Regional Transport Authority while exercising this function under Section 68-G (2) acts purely in an administrative capacity The field of the operation of a Regional Transport Authority, as we know, is a limited one and it exercises its powers and functions within territorial limit assigned to it. It is, therefore, not expected that the Regional Transport Authority, while discharging its functions under Section 68-G (2) of the Act can make an offer for the alternative route to the displaced operators falling in the jurisdiction of the other Regional Transport Authority as it is not possible for the Regional Transport Authority to know the conditions of the route or routes falling within the jurisdiction of other Regional Transport Authorities in the State In such circumstances, it was found necessary by the Parliament to clothe the State Governments with a power to issue directions for granting permits on the alternative routes to the displaced operators under Section 43 (1) (iii) of the Act The law provides that such directions shall be issued by the State Government after consulting the State Transport Authority which under the Act has to discharge certain functions regarding the transport matters in the State. The power of issuing directions under Section 43 (1) (iii) is to be exercised by the State Government in accordance with the procedure laid down in the proviso appended to that section which affords an opportunity to the representatives of the interests affected to raise objections and to be heard in that behalf. In these circumstances if the directions are issued by the State Government under the provisions of Section 43(1) (iii) and transmitted to Regional Transport Authority under Section 44 of the Act, the only task that is left for the Regional Transport Authority is to issue the permit to the displaced operator or operators on the route notified in the direction itself. The function of the Regional Transport Authority of issuing a permit under the directions given by the State Government can therefore be equated to the function it has to discharge while issuing permit under the scheme prepared under Chapter IV-A of the Act. That function, as observed by the Supreme Court, is ministerial or administrative in nature. Therefore the function of the Regional Transport Authority of issuing permit in pursuance of the direction under Section 43 (1) (iii) is .... purely an administrative function which, under the changed scheme of the Act, is permissible. In these circumstances, we do not find any force in the contention of Mr. Agarwal that the Regional Transport Authority cannot issue permits to the displaced operators without following the procedure prescribed in Chapter IV of the Act. The permits issued by the Regional Transport Authority in this particular case in obedience with the directions of the State Government under the provisions of Section 43(1) (iii) of the Act are, therefore, legal and do not suffer from any infirmity