Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 17342 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Rajendra Kumar Sahoo & Ors. …. Petitioner(s) State of Odisha and Anr. …. Opposite Party (s) -versus- Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. Prafulla Ku. Rath, Sr. Adv. Along with Associates Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA Mr. Pravakar Behera, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-08.09.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-31.10.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioners seek a direction from this Court to quash the impugned Notification dated 28.11.2023 proposing a Supplementary Reciprocal Transport Agreement with Chhattisgarh, and to mandate its republication in strict compliance with Section 88(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act after affording a fair and reasonable hearing to all existing operators. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Legal Reasoning
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 1 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 (i) The petitioners are stage-carriage operators with permanent permits issued by the State Transport Authority (STA), Odisha, operating interstate services on Odisha–Chhattisgarh routes. (ii) The Government of Odisha issued a draft proposal for a Supplementary Reciprocal Transport Agreement with Chhattisgarh, dated 20.11.2023 and published in the Odisha Gazette on 28.11.2023 under Section 88(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, inviting objections within 30 days. (iii) A publication relating to the proposal appeared in the Odia daily The Samaj on 24.11.2023 directing the public to view details on the official website and submit objections online; the Gazette notice stated that representations be filed within 30 days to the Transport Commissioner, Odisha, at Rajaswa Bhawan, Cuttack. (iv) The petitioners filed written objections on 22.12.2023 and later sought a personal hearing by representation dated 01.07.2024. (v) Notices for hearing were issued: on 02.07.2024 to at least one other objector; on 18.07.2024 to the petitioners to appear before the Transport Commissioner. (vi) During the writ proceedings, the Court recorded that the 18.07.2024 notice afforded inadequate time; a fresh notice dated 27.09.2024 fixed the hearing on 18.10.2024. (vii) The petitioners appeared on 18.10.2024 before the Chairman, State Transport Authority, and their objections were taken up for consideration. (viii) According to Opposite Party No. 2, the requirements of Section 88(5) regarding publication have been complied with and the draft proposal Page 2 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 has not yet been finalized; it remains under consideration after receipt of objections.
Decision
(ix) The writ petition challenges the 28.11.2023 notification on alleged non- compliance with Section 88(5), including publication and hearing aspects, and seeks appropriate directions. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: 3. (i) Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The petitioners contend that Section 88(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 mandates a dual publication: (i) in the Official Gazette, and (ii) in one or more regional language newspapers, along with clear notification of the authority, time, and place for consideration of objections. Failure to comply renders the notification void ab initio. (ii) The petitioners argue that despite filing objections within the prescribed time and reiterating their request for hearing, they were denied audience while other objectors were called, amounting to discrimination, procedural impropriety, and violation of natural justice. (iii) Even assuming publication in The Samaj (Oriya daily), it did not specify the required particulars (date, place, authority, and time), thereby defeating the substantive legislative intent of enabling effective participation of affected parties. (iv) The routes identified as “new” under the 2023 proposal, such as Puri- Bhilai, Puri-Raipur, Bhubaneswar-Raipur, and Puri-Durg, were already part of the 2008 reciprocal agreement and currently operational. Their re-inclusion as new routes is arbitrary, irrational, and contrary to factual reality. Page 3 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 (v) The proposed supplementary agreement, by introducing excessive and unassessed additional services, would disrupt the economic equilibrium of existing routes, compromise traffic viability, and jeopardize vested operational rights of licensed carriers. (vi) The issuance of the letter dated 18.07.2024, only after filing of the writ petition, is alleged to be an afterthought to justify procedural lapses, evidencing administrative malice. (vii) The petitioners rely on the settled principle of statutory interpretation that where an Act prescribes a mode of performance, deviation from it is impermissible, rendering any such action void and unsustainable. (viii) The petitioners seek quashing of the impugned Notification dated 28.11.2023 and a direction to the authorities to republish the proposal in conformity with Section 88(5) and afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to all existing operators before finalization of the agreement. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. (i) The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The Opposite Party contends that there has been due compliance with Section 88(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the proposal was published both in the Official Gazette and in The Samaj, an Odia daily newspaper, thereby satisfying the twin publication requirement prescribed by law. (ii) It is argued that the publication in The Samaj dated 24.11.2023 sufficiently informed the public about the proposal, directing them to the official website for complete details and for filing objections online, Page 4 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 which is consistent with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2020, thereby ensuring accessibility and transparency. (iii) The petitioners, having filed objections dated 22.12.2023, were served notices for personal hearing first on 18.07.2024 and later on 27.09.2024 after court directions. They appeared before the Chairman, State Transport Authority, and were duly heard on 18.10.2024, ensuring procedural fairness. (iv) The Opposite Party submits that though certain procedural steps such as hearing scheduling were delayed, substantial compliance with the statute has been achieved, and the draft proposal remains under process until all objections are fully considered. (v) It is contended that the petitioners, having already availed the opportunity to submit objections and appear for hearing, suffer no prejudice, and their challenge on the ground of defective publication is merely academic and unsustainable. (vi) The Opposite Party emphasizes that since the proposal is yet to be finalized, the petition is premature, speculative, and filed without exhaustion of administrative remedies, contrary to the settled principle that judicial interference is unwarranted at a pre-decisional stage. (vii) It is argued that the publication in the regional language daily, acceptance of objections, issuance of hearing notices, and subsequent consideration of the same fulfill the intent and purpose of Section 88(5), and any minor omission or delay cannot vitiate the entire process. (viii) The Opposite Party concludes that the petitioners’ claim of non- compliance is unfounded, the statutory requirements have been Page 5 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 observed in letter and spirit, and the writ petition merits dismissal as being misconceived, premature, and devoid of merit. IV. 5. 6. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS: Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. Section 88(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 governs the procedure for a State Government’s proposal to enter into an inter-State transport agreement. The statute mandates as follow: “Section 88(5) Every proposal to enter into an agreement between the States to fix the number of permits which is proposed to be granted or countersigned in respect of each route or area, shall be published by each of the State Governments concerned in the Official Gazette and in any one or more of the newspapers in regional language circulating in the area or route proposed to be covered by the agreement together with a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted, and the date not being less than thirty days from the date of publication in the Official Gazette, on which, and the authority by which, and the time and place at which, the proposal and any representation received in connection therewith will be considered.” 7. In short, the law requires a dual publication, Official Gazette and regional-language press, with full particulars, including the last date for filing objections and a clear hearing schedule for considering those objections. This procedure is mandatory: the legislation has prescribed the exact mode of notice in order to ensure informed participation of affected parties. Page 6 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 8. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar v. Regional Transport Authority1 has emphasized that inter-State routes can only be opened by agreement of the States, and that each State must deliberate and decide the routes to be opened as inter-State routes by determining the number of trips each route is to have. The relevant excerpts are produced below: “6…. Inter-State route under the scheme of the Acts has to be reciprocal and cannot be unilaterally created by one State or an authority in the State. The State Governments concerned are supposed to deliberate and decide the routes to be opened as inter-State routes by determining the number of trips each route was to have and prescribe other conditions for the smooth functioning of the Act to achieve its objective which is claimed to be a social welfare legislation.” 9. 10. In sum, the requirement of publication is thus intended to give existing permit-holders and the public an effective opportunity to object to any proposed agreement before it is finalized. The petitioners urge that the 28.11.2023 Gazette notification was issued in blatant disregard of Section 88(5). While the Gazette notice purported to fix a 30-day objection period, the regional newspaper notice merely advised readers to consult an official website and submit objections online. Crucially, it did not set out the date, time, place or authority for hearing objections, as demanded by the statute. 11. Thus, the petitioners argue, the statutory procedure was not followed. They say this omission defeats the legislative intent of transparent consultation. Further, the petitioners complain that even after filing objections, they were not given a hearing when other objectors were 1 (1999) 8 SCC 364. Page 7 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 summoned (notice dated 02.07.2024 to another objector, while petitioners only received a late notice on 18.07.2024). Only after this petition was filed did the authorities (on 27.09.2024) set a hearing for 18.10.2024 at which the petitioners finally appeared. These facts, they say, show discrimination and mala fides and violate natural justice. They also challenge certain substantive aspects of the draft agreement, e.g. listing already-approved routes as “new” and expanding trip allocations without any study, but their primary relief is that the notification be quashed and the proposal republished in strict compliance with Section 88(5). 12. The State contends that Section 88(5) has been substantially complied with. The draft proposal was gazetted on 28.11.2023, and an Odia daily carried a notice on 24.11.2023 inviting public views and directing readers to the official website for details of the proposal and objections. The Government relies on modern e-governance (IT Act) provisions to argue that publication of details online satisfies the transparency requirement. In any event, by the time of this petition the petitioners were given notice and have already participated in a hearing (on 18.10.2024) before the State Transport Authority, where their objections were “taken up for consideration”. The Opposite Parties further say no operator has been prejudiced and all objections were received and will be considered before finalizing the agreement. Therefore the petition is academic. They emphasize that the draft proposal is still under consideration, not yet finalized, so judicial interference would be premature. Any minor procedural lapse (such as a hearing date omitted Page 8 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 from the notice) is said to be harmless in the absence of any substantive injustice. 13. On the face of it, the petitioners are correct that strict compliance with Section 88(5) is required. The language of the statute is peremptory. The Official Gazette did set a last date for objections and named the Transport Commissioner as the receiving authority. However, it did not fix the date, time or place for any hearing. 14. In the present case, the Official Gazette did set a last date for objections (30 days) and named the Transport Commissioner as the receiving authority. However, it did not fix the date, time or place for any hearing. The newspaper notice in The Samaj likewise gave no such hearing schedule, it merely referred readers to “view details on the website” and “submit objections online”. This is plainly a significant departure from what the legislature contemplated. There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act or rules allowing the Government to publish only on a website instead of a printed notice with hearing particulars. The IT Act’s recognition of electronic documents does not override the specific mandate of Section 88(5). Thus, the newspaper notice was incomplete and the statutory mode of notice was not fully observed. As a result, the Gazette notification lacks the full force of law envisaged by Section 88(5). The omission of the hearing date is especially glaring, since the statute expressly calls for it. Courts have stressed that once the State decides to formulate an interstate agreement, affected parties must be given an effective opportunity to participate, which would include knowing when and where their objections will be heard. Page 9 of 12 15. The petitioners submitted objections within the statutory period and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 even requested a personal hearing. It is undisputed that, due to administrative delays and this litigation, the hearing ultimately took place on 18.10.2024 (before the State Transport Authority Chairman). The petitioners did appear and their objections were formally recorded. In these circumstances, the lack of a specific hearing date in the original notice appears to have caused some prejudice in terms of delay, but not a complete denial of hearing. By the time of final arguments, the petitioners had in fact presented their case. Although the scheduling was belated, the petitioners were not excluded from the process. Moreover, the Opposite Parties assert, and it is not controverted, that all objections received will be fairly considered in finalising the agreement. 16. From a practical viewpoint, therefore, the petitioners have obtained the “substance” of the remedy they sought, namely, an opportunity to make representations before the proposal is finalized. The remaining grievance is purely procedural i.e. the omission of hearing particulars in the original notice. Many courts have held that when an omission in the notice procedure causes no real prejudice, because the objector is later heard, relief may be withheld so as not to upset the entire process. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh2 held that because an award was binding on the parties, any further hearing would be an empty formality, only one outcome was possible despite the breach of natural justice. The relevant excerpts are produced below: 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. Page 10 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 “The principles of natural justice were also not required to be complied with as the same would have been an empty formality. The court will not insist on compliance with the principles of natural justice in view of the binding nature of the award.” 17. Applying these principles, we find that the omission here is likewise an empty ritual. The petitioners have now been heard on the substance of their objections, and no one suggests that the result could have been different. In this situation, insisting on the missing technical detail would serve no purpose. V. CONCLUSION: 18. In view of the above, it is clear that the objectors (petitioners) have ultimately received the benefit of a hearing and the authorities have invited their objections. While the initial notice did contain an omission, the petitioners were not left permanently without recourse. Because the agreement is still in draft form and no substantive decision has been rendered, the petitioners can make all their arguments when the proposal is finalized. 19. Under these circumstances, and having regard to the legislative purpose of Section 88(5), I find that the defect in the notice does not warrant quashing the entire Gazette notification at this stage. The petitioners have substantial compliance with the statutory scheme in effect. 20. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the Transport Commissioner and State Transport Authority are directed to ensure that, before any final agreement is notified, all petitioners (and other stake-holders) are given full opportunity to address any remaining concerns Page 11 of 12 21. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 31st October, 2025/ Page 12 of 12