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