Court upholds supersession order over State Road Transport Corporation Chairman's challenge, finding legality and competence.

The court upheld the supersession order challenged by the Chairman of the State Road Transport Corporation, ruling in favor of the State Government. The court found the petitioner had locus standi due to infringed rights but dismissed allegations of mala fides. It clarified that Section 38 did not require a prior inquiry under Section 36, and the Minister's actions were deemed valid. The court accepted the legality of the Central Government's approval and the competence of the Minister to pass the order. With sufficient material supporting the supersession, the petition was dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Locus Standi of the Petitioner
2. Requirement of Inquiry under Section 36 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950
3. Allegations of Mala Fides
4. Nature of Power under Section 38 of the Act
5. Requirement of a Speaking Order
6. Delegation of Ministerial Functions
7. Approval of the Central Government
8. Competence of the Minister to Pass the Order
9. Availability of Material to Form Opinion for Supersession

Detailed Analysis:

1. Locus Standi of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, as the Chairman of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, challenged the supersession order. The court held that the petitioner had locus standi to file the petition as his right to act as Chairman was infringed, resulting in pecuniary loss. The court distinguished the case from precedents where individual members could not challenge the dissolution of statutory bodies independently.

2. Requirement of Inquiry under Section 36 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950:
The petitioner argued that an inquiry under Section 36 was mandatory before supersession under Section 38. The court held that Section 38 operates independently of Sections 36 and 37. It does not necessitate a prior inquiry, provided the State Government forms an honest opinion based on some material.

3. Allegations of Mala Fides:
The petitioner alleged that the supersession was motivated by personal animosity of the Chief Minister and his desire to appoint his cousin as Chairman. The court found no evidence to support these allegations. The Chief Minister's affidavit denying these claims was accepted, and the petitioner's failure to substantiate his allegations led to the rejection of this ground.

4. Nature of Power under Section 38 of the Act:
The petitioner contended that the power under Section 38 was quasi-judicial and required a speaking order. The court, assuming the power to be quasi-judicial, found that procedural requirements were met. A show cause notice was issued, explanations were considered, and the Minister applied his mind to the matter. The absence of detailed reasons in the notification did not invalidate the order as the grounds were provided in the show cause notice.

5. Requirement of a Speaking Order:
The court held that Section 38 did not require reasons to be recorded in the notification itself. The detailed grounds supplied with the show cause notice and the internal notings were sufficient. The court distinguished this case from others where specific statutory provisions mandated recording reasons.

6. Delegation of Ministerial Functions:
The petitioner argued that the Minister improperly delegated his functions to subordinates. The court held that the Minister could rely on notes prepared by his officials, including the Home Commissioner, as part of the administrative process. The Minister's final decision, based on these notes, did not constitute improper delegation.

7. Approval of the Central Government:
The petitioner challenged the validity of the Central Government's approval. The court accepted the affidavit of the Under Secretary to the Government of India, which stated that the matter was carefully examined before granting approval. The court presumed the legality of official acts in the absence of specific challenges to the competence of the approving authority.

8. Competence of the Minister to Pass the Order:
The petitioner questioned the competence of the Minister, arguing that the matter should have been handled by the Chief Minister or the Governor. The court found that the business rules allowed the allocation of the State Owned Motor Transport to the Minister in charge, Shri Hardeo Joshi, and the Chief Minister also signed the order. The order, expressed in the name of the Governor, was valid under Article 166 of the Constitution.

9. Availability of Material to Form Opinion for Supersession:
The court found that most grounds for supersession were not controverted by the petitioner. Issues like the failure to create a City Transport Service, idle new vehicles, and the strike by employees were acknowledged. The State Government's opinion was based on sufficient material, and the court did not find the order to be mala fide, dishonest, or based on extraneous considerations.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the petitioner's objections. The supersession order was upheld, and no costs were awarded.

---