Quasi-judicial hearing on draft transport schemes may admit relevant evidence and justify withholding approval altogether.

A hearing on objections to a draft road transport scheme under Section 68-D(2) is quasi-judicial and must be real, not merely formal. The authority may receive relevant oral or documentary evidence where necessary, while retaining control over relevance and scope. A statutory power to approve or modify a draft scheme also includes the lesser power to withhold approval altogether, and the reference to cancellation of an already approved scheme does not limit that power. The scheme was therefore set aside because the parties were wrongly confined to arguments alone and the matter required reconsideration after a lawful hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on objections to a draft road transport scheme under Section 68-D(2), the authority had power to refuse approval of the scheme altogether; (ii) Whether the hearing contemplated by Section 68-D(2) permitted production of oral or documentary evidence, or was confined to arguments only.

Issue (i): Whether, on objections to a draft road transport scheme under Section 68-D(2), the authority had power to refuse approval of the scheme altogether.

Analysis: The statutory scheme empowers the State Government to consider objections and then approve or modify the draft scheme. A power to approve or modify necessarily includes the lesser power not to approve at all, because a proposal placed before the authority is not effective unless approved. The reference in Section 68-E to cancellation of an already approved scheme does not cut down the distinct power under Section 68-D(2) to withhold approval of a draft scheme. The same meaning applies to Rule 7(6), and any construction making the rule narrower than the statute would be impermissible.

Conclusion: The authority did have power to reject the draft scheme by withholding approval altogether, and the contrary view was wrong.

Issue (ii): Whether the hearing contemplated by Section 68-D(2) permitted production of oral or documentary evidence, or was confined to arguments only.

Analysis: The hearing under Section 68-D(2) is quasi-judicial in character and is intended to enable the authority to satisfy itself about the correctness of the transport undertaking's proposal. In that setting, a meaningful hearing may require relevant evidence, oral or documentary, where necessary for a just decision. The authority retains control to determine relevance, necessity, and the scope of evidence, and may regulate the proceedings reasonably. A blanket refusal to receive evidence on the assumption that only oral arguments are permissible is inconsistent with the statutory hearing.

Conclusion: Evidence, oral or documentary, could be received in appropriate cases, and the authority erred in confining the parties to arguments alone.

Final Conclusion: The approval of the scheme was set aside for want of a proper hearing under Section 68-D(2), and the draft scheme was directed to be reconsidered after a lawful hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires objections to be heard before approval of a draft scheme, the hearing must be real and quasi-judicial, carrying power to receive relevant evidence where necessary, and a power to approve or modify a proposal includes the power to withhold approval altogether.

---