Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. On behalf of the State and the respon-denboperators, the applications have been vehemently opposed. Their contention is that under Section 68-G (2) of the Act the Regional Transport Authority has to perform merely an administrative function. Instead of making payment of compensation in money, all that the Authority was doing was to provide, in lieu thereof, an alternative route to the respondents-operators, whose Permits on the Jaipur-Alwar route had been cancelled on account of the scheme for nationalisation. It was a mere case of offer and acceptance between the Regional Transport Authority on the one hand and the displaced bus-operators on the other, with which any third party had nothing to do, and therefore the action taken by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, was justified. It is sub mitted that the provisions of Chapter IVA under which the scheme was put into effect and in pursuance whereof the compensation became payable to the respondent-operators have an overriding effecit on the other provisions of the Act which are inconsistent therewith, and the petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right that they should have been heard in the matter before any decision could be taken for diverting these respondent-operators from the Jaipur-Alwar route to the Jaipur-Bikaner route. The case of grant of an alternative route, according to the learned Government Advocate, within the meaning of Section 68-G(2) of the Apt, stands on an entirely different footing from the grant, of fresh permits on any particular route, and therefore those formalities which may be required for the grant ot fresh permits on a route cannot possibly be attracted to the grant of an alternative route within the section .

"Notwithstanding anything contained in subSection (1), no compensation shall be payable on account of the cancellation of any existing permit or any modification of the terms thereof,' where a permit foe an alternative route Or area in lieu thereof has been offered by the Regional Transport Authority and accepted by the holder of the permit.

Sub-Section (1) of Section. 68-G says that where at permit has been cancelled, compensation will be payable to the permit-holder. Sub-section (2) contemplates another remedy also, namely, that if the permit-holder whose permit is cancelled Or modified accepts an alternative route or area in lieu of the cancelled or modified permit, then he would not be entitled to any compensation lor it. The Section does not lay clown anywhere as to how this alternative route is to be offered. It is merely an enabling provision, under which instead of the monetary compensation an alternative route may be offered. In case it is decided to offer an alternative route, the point is how is that to be done. Is it permissible under the law to grant an alternative route without hearing the parties affected thereby, who are already operating on the alternative route? Section 68G nowhere lays down that it can be done without hearing the parties affected. It nowhere authorises the Regional Transport Authority to issue a permit forthwith without hearing other parties who are not before it and whose rights are bound to be affected thereby. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the procedure of giving notice to the parties affected and hearing their objections, if any, before granting permits on an alternative route is in any manner inconsistent with the provisions of Section 68G (2) of the Statute. Since the grant of an alternative route affects the interest of persons already plying their buses on the route, we are not prepared to assume that the grant is merely an administrative act.

I need not refer to some of the English cases which have been cited on the point. They relate to merely administrative actions. Even those cases do not lay down that where the rights of a third party are affected by a .certain order, the order can be made in his absence and to his prejudice without giving him an opportunity of being heard in the matter.

7. We are faced with the question what procedure the Regional Transport Authority has to follow in a case of this nature. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred us to a decision in Kashi Prasad Gupta v. Regional Transport Authority, Gorakhpur, AIR 1961 All 214 where the learned Judge sitting singly, held that the proposed assignment of an alternative route should be included in the scheme of nationalisation itself. This he held because he felt that otherwise the existing operators on the line would not have an opportunity of being heard before the displaced operators come to be assigned on the line on account of the operation of the nationalised scheme. If it is included in the scheme itself, obviously an opportunity is provided to the existing operators to object to the assignment of those alternative routes to the displaced operators. That of course is one definite procedure which could be adopted by the Regional Transport Authority in consultation with the framers of the scheme. But, in our opinion, that is not the only solution. It has to be borne in mind that it may not be possible in all cases to provide for an alternative route in the scheme itself. An attempt to provide an alternative route to displaced operators is, strictly speaking, not an intrinsic part of the scheme itself. The question arises incidentally fin connection with the payment of compensation to displaced operators for the period for which their existing permits stand cancelled or modified by reason of the scheme. They may be given compensation or they may be provided with an alternative route. This consideration can, therefore, arise even at a subsequent stage after the scheme has been finalised and put through. The money compensation is payable within a month from the date from which the cancellation or modification of the permits takes place (vide Section 68H of the Act); and if it is not so paid, then the compensation is likely to carry interest at 3 1/2 per cent per annum from the date of the compensation order.

Therefore even at a later stage the Regional Transport Authority may decide, if it is considered convenient, to offer an alternative route. In that event, it would be going too far to suggest that the offer of an alternative route should always be provided for in the scheme itself. In case an alternative route is offered at a later stage, it appears to us that two courses are open to the Regional Transport Authority. One is the normal course under Section 57, under which fresh permits can be granted on any particular route. In that case mutatis mutandis the procedure laid down under Section 57 of the Act will have to be followed. That being so, on the publication of the applications of the displaced operators, parties operating on the routes get an opportunity of presenting their objections and their objections have to be decided in accordance with law, before any fresh permits can be granted on those routes. It is possible that after hearing the parties concerned the application of the displaced operator may be reflected, in which event he may either seek another route or rest satisfied with monetary compensation.