TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1962 (12) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 3 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the names of the permitholders on these three overlapping routes with their permits were also specified for cancellation, and no transport vehicles other than the vehicles of the Road ways were to ply on the route to be taken over. The usual time was also given for filing objections to all those whose interests were affected by the draftscheme. The petitioners filed objections under s.68D of the Act, which were heard by the Legal Remembrancer to the Government of Rajasthan, he being the person appointed to hear and decide the objec- tions, The objectors wanted to lead evidence and did produce some witnesses but some witnesses to whom summonses were issued did not turn up and the objectors wanted the issue of coercive processes against them. The Legal Remembrancer however refused this on the ground that lie had no power to issue coercive process. As the objectors did not produce any further witnesses, the arguments were heard and the Legal Remembrancer gave his decisions on May 31, 1962. One of the main points then raised before the Legal Remembrancer was that there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....State Government to make any modification in the decision of the Legal Remembrancer and inasmuch as that had been done the final scheme as published was invalid. It also held that as the twelve partially overlapping routes were not notified in the draftscheme and no notice had been given to the permitholders thereof, it was not open to the Legal Remembrancer to pass any orders with respect to them. It therefore set aside the scheme as published under s. 68D (3) of the Act. Finally, the High Court observed that as the scheme as published was not the scheme as approved by the Legal Remembrancer and as the decision of the Legal Remembrancer becomes final when it is published, it was open to the Legal Remembrancer to modify his decision, even though he may have signed and pronounced it. The Legal -Remembrancer was thus directed to go into the matter again and leave the question of the twelve partially overlapping routes for a subsequent scheme. The final scheme as published under s. 68D (3) of the Act was set aside and the Regional Transport Authority was directed not to implement it until it was regularised in accordance with law. The matter then went back to the Legal Remembrancer w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement later. It is also true that the Act does not provide for review of an approval once given by the Legal Remembrancer, though he may be entitled to correct any clerical mistakes or inadvertent slips that may have crept in his order. It is also true that the Legal Remembrancer when considering the objections has to exercise his own judgment subject to any directions that the High Court. might give on questions of law relating to a particular draftscheme. But we do not think that this is a case where the draft-scheme has been approved in part and another part of it has been left unapproved to be taken up later; nor is this a case where the Legal Remembrancer abdicated his own judgment or reviewed his earlier decision when he proceeded to reconsider the matter after the High Court had set aside the scheme as published under s. 68D (3) of the Act on June 16, 1962. Let us see what the draft-scheme was meant to provide in this case. As we have already indicated, the draft-scheme was published in order to take over the Jodhpur-Bilara- Beawar-Ajmer route. It also provided for taking over all the three completely overlapping routes, namely, Jodhpur- Bilara, Bilara-Beawar, and Beawar-Aj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igh Court then went on to observe that if the Legal Remembrancer thought fit to include these routes in the scheme also, he should have given notice to all concerned to file their objections. With respect, it seems to us that this observation of the High Court is not correct. If the scheme did not include the partially overlapping routes-as it undoubtedly did not, in spite of what the objectors might have said and what the Roadways might have maintained before the Legal Remembrancer on the first occasion-it was not open to the Legal Remembrancer to include these overlapping routes in the scheme at all and he could not do so even if he had given notice to the permit- holders on these overlapping routes. The question therefore whether the final approval of the draft scheme as published on August 31,1962 is an approval of a part of the scheme only, leaving another part of the scheme unapproved and therefore liable to enforcement later, can only admit of one answer, namely, that the approval was of the scheme as a whole. The contention therefore on behalf of the petitioners that part of the scheme has been approved and the rest of it has been left unapproved, can have no force on the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....approved scheme as published on June 16, 1962, it meant the decision of the Legal Remembrancer dated May 31, 1962, also came to an end, for the final scheme as published on June 16, 1962 was undoubtedly based on it, even though there were further changes in that decision at the time of publication. In the present case the order of the High Court was analogous to a remand as understood in courts of law. What the Legal Remembrancer did on the second occasion was to reappraise the evidence in the light of the law laid down by the High Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decision of the Legal Remembrancer on August 17, 1962, is a review of his earlier decision dated May 31, 1962. It must be treated as a fresh decision, after the High Court had set aside the final scheme as published on June 16, 1962. Though therefore the proposition put forward on behalf of the petitioners may be accepted as correct, there is no scope for applying the principles contained in these propositions to the facts of this case. The contention therefore that the scheme as finally published on August 31, 1962 is bad because it militates against these principles must be rejected. Re. (3) & (4). It is ur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mbrancer can do is to summon witnesses who may or may not appear in answer to the summonses, it is enough to say that the proceedings before the Legal Remembrancer though quasi-judicial are not exactly like proceedings in court. In proceedings of this kind, it may very well be concluded when a witness is summoned and does not appear, that he does not wish to give evidence, and that may be the reason why no provision is made in the Rules for any coercive process. We think in the circumstances of the hearing to be given by the Legal Remembrancer, it is enough if he takes evidence of the witnesses whom the objectors bring before him themselves and if he helps them to secure their attendance by issue of summonses. But the fact that the Rules do not provide for coercive processes does not mean in the special circumstances of the hearing before the Legal Remembrancer that there can be no proper hearing without such coercive processes. We are therefore of opinion that the Legal Remembrancer did give a hearing to the objectors after the order of the High Court and that in the circumstances that hearing was a proper and sufficient hearing. The challenge therefore to the validity of the sche....