Draft-and-objection compliance validates administrative directions and displaced-operator permits without fresh permit procedure.

Compliance with the statutory draft-and-objection procedure under Section 43(1)(iii) satisfied the requirements of notice, hearing and consultation, as the affected operators had filed objections and were represented before the Home Secretary and State Transport Authority. The challenge for want of procedural fairness therefore failed. In the context of the special scheme for nationalised routes and displaced operators, the State Government's directions were administrative, and permits issued in obedience to those directions were ministerial acts. The ordinary Chapter IV procedure for fresh permits was accordingly unnecessary, so the impugned notification and consequential permits were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned directions under Section 43(1)(iii) were invalid for want of notice and hearing to the affected operators before the Home Secretary and consultation with the State Transport Authority; (ii) Whether permits issued to displaced operators in pursuance of such directions required compliance with the full procedure for grant of fresh permits under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned directions under Section 43(1)(iii) were invalid for want of notice and hearing to the affected operators before the Home Secretary and consultation with the State Transport Authority.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 43 required publication of a draft direction, consideration of objections after consulting the State Transport Authority, and an opportunity of hearing to the representatives of the interests affected. The affected operators had filed identical objections, notice was issued by registered post, and the union president and counsel represented the operators before the Home Secretary. The petitioners were also present at the later meeting of the State Transport Authority but did not avail themselves of the opportunity to press their objections. The statutory requirement was therefore treated as satisfied.

Conclusion: The challenge based on want of notice and hearing failed.

Issue (ii): Whether permits issued to displaced operators in pursuance of such directions required compliance with the full procedure for grant of fresh permits under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

Analysis: Chapter IV-A, read with Sections 68-B, 68-F and 68-G(2), gave overriding effect to the special scheme for nationalised routes and compensation of displaced operators. In that setting, the State Government's directions under Section 43(1)(iii) were administrative, and the Regional Transport Authority's role in issuing permits pursuant to those directions was ministerial. The ordinary Chapter IV procedure for fresh permits was therefore unnecessary where the directions were issued after the statutory draft-and-objection process and consultation with the State Transport Authority.

Conclusion: The permits issued under the impugned directions were valid and did not require the Chapter IV procedure.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was found to be without merit, and the impugned notification as well as the consequential permits were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory draft-and-objection procedure under Section 43(1)(iii) is followed, the resulting directions are administrative in character, and permits issued in obedience to those directions for displaced operators are valid without resort to the ordinary Chapter IV procedure for fresh permits.

---