Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
ONKAR SINGH & OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, AGRA & OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT23/04/1986
BENCH:
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)561
CITATOR 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 interest warranting interference by court
- Necessity of modifying/approving the draft scheme
expeditiously - Explained.
HEADNOTE:
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 1960
u/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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
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
737
services 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 Tribunal
JUDGMENT:
Transport Authority, Ujjain & Ors., [1985] 4 S.C.C. 190,
Shri Chand v. Government of U.P. Lucknow & Ors., [1985] 4
S.C.C. 169, relied upon.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
&
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1360 of
1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13th January, 1986 of
the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. 1613 of 1986.
Mrs. Rani Chhabra and R.K. Jain for the Appellants.
O.P. Rana, Anil Dev Singh, Raju Ramachandran and Mrs.
Shobha Dikshit for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH, J. The appellants are carrying on the
business of running stage carriages in the State of Uttar
Pradesh. They had obtained temporary permits under section
68-F(1-C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter
referred to as ’the Act’) on the route Somna-Naujheel. They
738
could not obtain permits under Chapter IV of the Act to
operate on the said route since a scheme published under
section 68-C of the Act in the year 1960 was in force. It
would appear that the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ’the Corporation’)
applied for fifteen temporary permits for operating its
stage carriages on the route in question and obtained them
from the Regional Transport Authority, Agra under section
68-F(1-A) of the Act as per its order dated 31.1.1984. But
the Corporation introduced only five services against
fifteen permits. Thus there were ten vacancies. The Regional
Transport Authority granted ten temporary permits to ten
private operators in those ten vacancies. One Devender Pal
Singh who was holding a non-temporary permit issued under
Chapter IV of the Act filed a revision petition under
section 64-A of the Act before the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal. The petition was dismissed. On account of the
pressure of traffic the number of temporary permits was
increased to thirty four. The Corporation was granted these
additional permits. But it failed to operate its services
under all the permits issued to it. The private operators
who wanted to operate the vehicles were not granted
temporary permits. The appellants were asked to stop plying
their vehicles under the temporary permits obtained by them.
Aggreived by the stoppage of the running of their vehicles,
they filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad in
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 1613 of 1985
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 section 68-C was
approved under section 68-D of the Act. The High Court being
of the opinion that on permits being issued to the State
Transport Undertaking, i.e., the Corporation in this case,
the temporary permits issued to other private operators
under section 68-F(1-C) of the Act came to an end, dismissed
the writ petition. Aggreived by the Judgment in the writ
petition, the appellants have filed this appeal by special
leave. When this petition came up for admission on April 1,
1986 before this Court it was urged by the appellants that
the draft scheme published under section 68-C of the Act
having become stale was liable to be quashed in view of some
of the recent decisions rendered by this Court. On the basis
of the above submissions notices were issued to the State
Government and the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation - the
739
respondent herein to show cause why the draft scheme should
not be quashed. The counter-affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the Corporation opposing the prayer made in this
appeal.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
The draft scheme admittedly was published under section
68-C of the Act on June 25, 1960 more than 25 years ago and
it has not yet been approved. It is still in the stage of a
draft scheme. We have been taken through the counter-
affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation setting out the
several steps taken in the proceedings before the Hearing
Authority under section 68-D of the Act. On going through
the counter-affidavit we are not convinced that sufficient
grounds have 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. We find that there
has been clear disobedience of the provisions of the Act.
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 the 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 three to five 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 twenty five years as in this case. The
undesirable
740
effects of the inordinate delay in completing the
proceedings under section 68-D of the Act are many. Two of
them are :
(i) it exhibits lack of interest on the part of
the administration 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
services of an improved kind because the operators
who are operating on temporary permits would have
no incentive to develop any enduring good will and
naturally not interested in providing better
services.
The period of such uncertainty should not be allowed to
continue any longer in the instant case.
In Yogeshwar Jaiswal v. State Transport Appellate
Tribunal & Ors., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 790, this Court has
explained how inordinate delay in acting under section 68-D
of the Act would prejudice the public interest. Following
the above decision in Phool Chand Gupta v. Regional
Transport Authority, Ujjain & Ors., [1985] 4 S.C.C. 190, and
in Shri Chand v. Government of U.P., Lucknow & Ors., [1985]
4 S.C.C. 169, this Court has quashed the schemes published
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
under section 68-C of the Act since they had not been
approved by the authority concerned under section 68-D of
the Act within a reasonable time. Following the three
decisions referred to above we quash the scheme which is the
subject matter of this appeal and direct the Hearing
Authority under section 68-D of the Act not to proceed with
the hearing of the matter. It is now open to the Corporation
to publish, if it so desires, a fresh scheme under section
68-C of the Act. We, however, permit the Corporation and
others who are at present operating stage carriage vehicles
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 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
741
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 carriages permit
under Chapter IV of the Act. The Regional Transport
Authority may also grant, if it finds that it is necessary
to do so in the public interest, temporary permits under
section 62 of the Act until the draft scheme is published.
This appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no
order as to costs.
M.L.A. Appeal allowed.
742