Facts of the case – Gullapalli Nageswara Rao vs. A.P.S.R.T.C.

In this case, the petitioner was executing his transporting business. While in the meantime, the A.P.S.R.T.C. Secretary published the Nationalization of Motor Transport Scheme in the state. As per the scheme, one can submit objections, if any. The petitioner hereby submitted the objections which were not taken into consideration. As a result of which, the petitioner moved to the Supreme Court of India, contending with regard to the objections which were submitted by him to the concerned department. He claimed that the objections were received and heard by the A.P.S.R.T.C. Secretary. Also, the A.P.S.R.T.C. Secretary was the actual person behind the framing of the nationalization scheme.

Bhikaji Vs State of Madhya Pradesh – 1995

Judgment –

The Supreme Court, in the case of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao vs A.P.S.R.T.C., held the concerned Secretary in the desecration of rules and regulations of Natural Justice. The court also issued the Writ of Certiorari against the Secretary. Additionally, departmental bias was brought into the picture concerning the fact that the Secretary made the nationalization scheme. Furthermore, objections were heard by him too.