Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

and contended that the directions for the grant of permits for alternative routes or areas should be considered an administrative act. Reliance was placed upon the observations of a Bench decision of this Court in Abdul Gafoor v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1962 Raj 174 where the granting of permits for alternative routes or areas under Section 43 (1) (iii) was treated as valid and a more suitable method. In this connection it was also suggested that the State Government can issue directions in connection with the grant of permits for alternative routes or areas under this provision irrespective of the controversy whether the grant of permits for alternative routes or areas is a quasi-judicial function or an administrative function. For the same reasons it was submitted that the State Transport Authority should also be held competent to issue such directions under Section 44 (3) (a) of the Act for co-ordinating and regulating the activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authority,

14. Alternatively, it was contended that the initial offer to the holders of the existing permits for alternative route or area under 9 (g) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Service (Development) Rules, 1960, is at any rate, an administrative act and that consequently, the State Transport Authority is quite competent to issue directions for making such initial offers of permits for alternative routes or areas. Pointing out in this connection that the rules 9 (d), (e), (f) and (g) merely envisage and provide for the consideration of the opposition by the existing members to the grant of permits for alternative routes or areas in pursuance of the initial offers and not by applicants for fresh permits under Section 57 and consequently, the State Transport Authority should be held competent to issue further consequential directions to restrain the grant of fresh permits so as to implement the offer of permits for alternative routes or areas to displaced operators. It was contended that in this back-ground the impugned direction are sustainable.

20. In view of the above observations as also subsequent observations in the decisions the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the grant of permits for alternative routes is in the nature of an executive or administrative function cannot be accepted and must be rejected.

21. In this connection, a question may arise whether under Section 43 (1) (iii) the State Government is empowered to issue necessary directions for the grant of permit for alternative routes or the areas, etc. This Court no doubt in AIR 1962 Raj 174 held that such directions can be issued and in fact even went to the extent of observing that this was probably a more suitable method. The Court treated the function as quasi-judicial function. The decision holding the issue of directions under Section 43(1) (iii) as quasi-judicial function appears contrary to the decision taken by the Supreme Court in AIR 1964 S C 1573. In that case, it was held generally that Sections 42, 43 and 44 merely cover the administrative field. As in the present case there is no notification issued by the State Government under Section 43 (1)(iii), I consider it unnecessary to enter into the controversy whether under that section the State Government can exercise functions by issuing directions for granting permits for alternative routes or areas to displaced persons. Whatever may be the position under this section, it cannot be accepted that the State Transport Authority can issue directions for regulating the grant of permits for alternative routes or areas to displaced persons under Section 44 (3) (a).

Under Sub-section (2) of Section 68-G the Regional Transport Authority has been empowered to offer a permit for an alternative route to the holder of a permit whose existing permit is cancelled, or the terms whereor are modified and if the holder of sueh a permit accepts the alternative route or area in lieu thereof he is not entitled to any compensation. This being the position, the making of an offer of a permit for an alternative route or area in lieu of the cancellation of an existing permit or any modification of the terms thereof is one of the functions of the Regional Transport Authority. In my mind, there is no doubt that this is an administrative function. Behind it is the policy that the State Transport Undertaking may be made free of its liability to pay compensation as provided in Section 68-G.