Orissa High Court

Constitution Of India vs State Of Odisha And Anr. .... Opposite ... on 31 October, 2025

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                                                  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)
                                   -versus-
         State of Odisha and Anr.           ....                 Opposite Party (s)


      Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

         For Petitioner(s)           :              Mr. Prafulla Ku. Rath, Sr. Adv.
                                                             Along with Associates


         For Opposite Party (s)      :                  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:

 2.   The brief facts of the case are as follows:















(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

has not yet been finalized; it remains under consideration after receipt

of objections.

(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. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) 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.

(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. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the

following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) 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,

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

observed in letter and spirit, and the writ petition merits dismissal as

being misconceived, premature, and devoid of merit.

IV. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS:

5. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents

placed before this Court.

6. 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.

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. 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.

10. 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

(1999) 8 SCC 364.

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

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.

15. The petitioners submitted objections within the statutory period and

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:

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

"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