Summary
The appellants, Private Operators, had obtained temporary permits under section 68-F (1-C) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 on the route Somna-Naujheel. They could not obtain permits under Chapter IV of the Act to operate on the said route since a scheme published in 1960 under section 68-C of the Act was in force. They were asked to stop plying their vehicles. Aggrieved by the stoppage of the running of their vehicles, they filed a Writ Petition in the High Court contending that once temporary permits were issued under Section 68-F(1-C) of the Act, they would remain in force until the draft scheme published under s. 68-C was approved under s. 68-D of the Act. The High Court dismissed the Petition on the ground that since permits had already been issued to the State Transport Undertaking, the temporary permits issued to other private operators under section 68-F(1-C) of the Act came to an end.
In the appeal to the Supreme Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the draft scheme, published under section 68-C of the Act having become stale was liable to be quashed due to inordinate delay in completing the proceedings under s. 68-D of the Act.Allowing the appeal.^HELD : 1(i) The draft scheme published in the year 1960u/s 68-C of the Act is quashed and the Hearing Authority under section 68-D of the Act is directed not to proceed with the hearing of the matter. [740 F]736 1.(ii) It is now open to the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation to publish, if it so desires a fresh scheme under section 68-C of the Act. The Corporation on the route in question pursuant to the permits issued under section 68-F(1-A) or under section 68-F(1-C) of the Act, as the case may be, are permitted to operate their stage carriages until 15.10.1986. If a fresh scheme is published under section 68-C of the Act within that period it shall be open to the Corporation to apply for fresh temporary permits under section 68-F(1-A) of the Act. On permits being granted under section 68-F(1-A) of the Act, all the permits now issued under section 68-F(1-A) or under section 68-F(1-C) of the Act shall come to an end. Until a fresh draft scheme is published under section 68-C of the Act, it shall be open to any person to make applications for a stage carriage permit under Chapter IV of the Act. [740 F-H; 741 A-B]2.(i) The proviso to section 68-F(1-D) of the Act which provides that where the period of operation of a permit in relation to any area, route, or portion thereof specified in a scheme published under section 68-C of the Act expires after such publication, such permit may be renewed for a limited period, but the permit so renewed shall cease to be effective on the publication of the scheme under sub-section (3) of section 68-D of the Act indicates legislative intention regarding the maximum period that may be spent on the proceedings which intervene between the date of publication of the draft scheme under section 68-C of the Act and the publication of the approved or modified scheme under section 68-D(3) of the Act. It suggests that it cannot be longer than 3 to 5 years which is usually the period during which a permit can be in force without renewal as provided in section 58 of the Act. It could never have been in the contemplation of Parliament that the period for approving a scheme with or without modification or for rejecting it could be 25 years as in this case. [739 E-H]2.(ii) Two of the undesirable effects of the inordinate delay in completing the proceedings under section 68-D of the Act are : (i) it exhibits lack of interest on the part of the administraton in bringing into effect administrative decisions without undue delay; and (ii) the public interest suffers as the members of the public are denied normal stage carriage 737services of an improved kind because the operators who are operating on temporary permits would have no incentive to develop any enduring goodwill and naturally not interested in providing better services. [740 A-C]In the instant case, sufficient grounds have not been made out for sustaining the draft scheme at this distance of time. It is seen that there is tremendous pressure for the grant of permits to ply stage carriages on the route. Yet the State Transport Undertaking which is expected to provide adequate, efficient, economic and co-ordinated service has failed to do so even after twenty five years have elapsed.It may be that some operators had adopted delaying tactics.But the Hearing Authority under section 68-D of the Act should have taken necessary steps to conclude the proceedings early. The delay of nearly a quarter of a century is inexcusable. The draft scheme has virtually become out-moded. Therefore, there has been clear disobedience of the provisions of the Act. [739 C-E]Yogeshwar Jaiswal v. State Transport Appellate TribunalSee the full content of this document
Extract
Onkar Singh & Others VS. Regional Transport Authority, Agra & Others
PETITIONER: ONKAR SINGH & OTHERS Vs.RESPONDENT: REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, AGRA & OTHERSDATE OF JUDGMENT23/04/1986BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)CITATION: 1986 AIR 1719 1986 SCR (2) 735 1986 SCC (3) 259 1986 SCALE (1)561CITATOR INFO : RF 1992 SC1789 (5)ACT: Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ss. 68-C and 68-D - Inordinate delay in approving the draft scheme - Whether delay prejudices public int...
See the full content of this document