http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: PHOOL CHAND GUPTA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: REGIONAL TANSPORT AUTHORITY, UJJAIN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/08/1985

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) MISRA, R.B. (J)

CITATION:  1986 AIR  119            1985 SCR  Supl. (2) 682  1985 SCC  (4) 190        1985 SCALE  (2)334  CITATOR INFO :  R          1986 SC 242  (2)  F          1986 SC1719  (4)  F          1987 SC1324  (2)

ACT:      Constitution of  India 1950,  Article 32  and 19(1) (g) Delay in  publication of  approved scheme under section 68-D of Motor  Vehicles Act,  1939 -  Whether violate fundamental right. Motor  Vehicles Act,  1939, sections  68-C  and  68-D Publication of  draft scheme - Approved scheme not published even after  20 years - Application for stage carriage permit for route  covered by  the  draft  scheme  kept  pending  by Regional Transport  Authority  whether  valid  -  Inordinate delay in  publication of  draft scheme  -  Whether  violates fundamental rights.      Motor Vehicles  Act, 1939,  sections 68-C  and  68-D  - Publication of  draft scheme - Approved scheme not published even after  20 years - Application for stage carriage permit for route  covered by  the  draft  scheme  kept  pending  by Regional Transport  Authority  whether  valid  -  Inordinate delay in  publication of  draft scheme  -  Whether  violates fundamental rights.

HEADNOTE:      The  petitioner   applied  to  the  Regional  Transport Authority for  the issuance of a stage carriage permit under the Motor  Vehicles Act  1939 to  operate a  stage  carriage service on  a route  in the  year 1968. Since a draft scheme prepared by  the  State  Road  Transport  Corporation  under section 68-C  of the  Act covering  the said  route had been published in  the  year  1965  proposing  to  operate  stage carriage service  on the  route to  the exclusion  of  other operators ant  the said scheme hat not yet been published as the approved  scheme as required by section 68-D of the Act, his application  was kept  pending   the regional  Transport Aauthority.      In the  writ petition  under Article  32 the petitioner sought to quash the draft scheme of the State Road Transport Corporation ant  to direct  the respondents  not to take any further steps  pursuant to  the  draft  scheme  because  the approved scheme hat not been published even after a lapse of 20 years  and this  inordinate delay  has  resulted  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

violation of  the fundamental  right guarantee under Article l9(1)(g).      Allowing the petition, ^      HELD: 1.  If there  has been  unreasonable delay in the publication of the approved scheme under section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles  Act,  1939,  the  scheme  is  liable  to  be quashed, [686 D] 683      2. There  is no  justification in  the circumstances of this   case to  keep the proceedings pending any longer. The fact that  the Central  Government and  the State Government have not  given their approval/consent to the  scheme cannot be considered as an extending circumstance. [686 D-E]      Yogeshwar Jaiswal  etc. v.  State  Transport  Appellate Tribunal and Ors. A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 516 followed.      3. The  draft scheme,  that 18,  scheme No-  72 of 1965 published under section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ant all  the proceedings  which have  taken  place  pursuant thereto till  now including  the order passed by the Special Secretary of the Government of Madhya Pradesh on are quashed and the  direction issued to the respondents not to take any further proceedings  hereafter pursuant  to the salt scheme. [686 E-F]      4. The  draft scheme  which was  published in  the year 1965 has  not   yet received the approval under section 68-D of the  Act and  is not  published as  required by  law.  No satisfactory explanation is also forthcoming for this delay. During the  period of  20 years since the publication of the draft scheme  there has been lot of development in or around the area  of routes covered by lt. Hence lt can no longer be said that the proposal in the draft scheme would satisfy the requirement- of  section 68-C of the Act which provides that the transport  service which is prepared to be introduced in respect of  any route  or area to the exclusion, complete or partial, of  all other  operators should  be  an  efficient, adequate, economical  and properly coordinated service. [685 B, 686 B-Cl      5. The State Transport Undertaking can take fresh steps for publishing  a scheme  under section  68-C of  the Act in respect  of  the  route  or  area  in  question  if  thought necessary to  do so.  It is  not  necessary  to  revive  the application allegedly made in the year 1968 at this distance of time.  petitionary, if advised may file fresh application which shall  be disposed  of according to law. [686 F-H, 689 A]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8085 of 1985.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)      R.K. Jain and R.P. Singh for the Petitioner. 684      Ravinder Bana and Rameshwar Nath for the Respondents.      The Judgement of the Court was delivered by      VENKATARAMIAH,  J.  This  is  a  petition  filed  under Article 32  of the  Constitution. The  petitioner applied to the Regional  Transport Authority  Ujjain in  the  State  of Madhya Pradesh  for the  issuance of a stage carriage permit under  the  provisions  of  the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1939 (hereinafter referred  to as  ’the Act’)  to operate a stage carriage  service   on  the  route  between  Bhadavmata  and Mandsaur in  the year 1968. Since a draft scheme prepared by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

the Madhya  Pradesh State  Road Transport  Corporation  (the State Transport  Undertaking) under  section 68-C of the Act covering the  said route had been published as scheme No. 72 in  the  year  1965  proposing  to  operate  stage  carriage services on  the route  to the  exclusion of other operators and the  said scheme  had not  yet  been  published  as  the approved scheme  as required  by section 68-D of the Act his application was  kept  pending  by  the  Regional  Transport Authority, Ujjain  Region, Ujjain by its order dated January 20, 1977. Because the approved scheme has not been published till today even after the lapse of 20 years from the date of its publication under section 68-C of the Act the petitioner has filed  this petition  requesting the  court to quash the draft scheme  No.  72  of  1965  and  to  direct  the  State Government,  the   State  Transport   Undertaking  and   the Transport Authorities not to take any further steps pursuant to the said draft scheme.      When the  above  petition  came  up  for    preliminary hearing on  July 29,  1985 a  notice was issued to the State Government of  Madhya Pradesh  to show  cause why  the draft scheme and  all proceedings  consequent upon its publication should not be quashed. In reply to the said notice a counter Affidavit has  been filed,  the deponent  of which  18  B.M. Saxena, Traffic  Superintendent, Madhya  Pradesh State  Road Transport Corporation,  Bhopal. In  the counter affidavit it 18 stated  that the  draft scheme, that is, Scheme No.72 was published under  section 68-C  of the  Act on  December  31, 1965. The objections and representations filed in respect of the  said   scheme  were  heart  by  the  Special  Secretary appointed by the State Government to hear the objections and that the  objections and representations were disposed of by him by  his order dated May 16, 1967. Thereafter, the entire proceedings were  placed before the State Government for its approval and  publications under sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 68-D  of the Act. It would appear that the scheme in question involved  certain 685 inter-State routes  and that  it had  to be  approved by the Central Government as required by the proviso to sub-section (3) of  section 68-D  of the Act and also assented to by the State Government  of Rajasthan. The State Government had not been able  to obtain till now the requisite approval/consent of  the  Central  Government  or  the  State  Government  of Rajasthan and  thus it  has not been possible to publish the approved scheme.      From the  foregoing it  is clear  that the draft scheme which was  published in  the year  1965 has not yet received the approval  under section 68-D of the Act and published as required  by   law.  No  satisfactory  explanation  is  also forthcoming for  this delay.  The petitioner  contends  that this inordinate  delay has  resulted in the violation of the fundamental right  guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. In  support of  his contention, the petitioner has relied  upon a  decision  of  this  Court  in  Yogeshwar Jaiswal etc.  v. State  Transport Appellate  Tribunal & Ors. A.I.R. 1985  S.C. 516.  In  that  decision  this  Court  has observed at pages 518-519 thus:           "The provisions  of section 68C and 68D of the Act           clearly indicate that any scheme which is intended           for providing  efficient, adequate,  economical or           properly co-ordinated  transport service should be           approved either  as it is or in a modified form or           rejected, as  the case may be, within a reasonably           short time  as any extraordinary delay is bound to           upset  all   or  any   of  the   factors,  namely,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

         efficiency,  adequacy,  economy  or  co-ordination           which ought  to govern  an approved  scheme  under           Chapter IVA  of the  Act. On  account  of  various           reasons such  as the  growth of population and the           development of  the geographical  area adjacent to           the area  or route  in question,  any unreasonable           delay may  render the  very proposal  contained in           the scheme  antiquated, outmoded  and purposeless.           Hence there  is need  for speedy  disposal of  the           case under section 68D of the Act.................           Delay in  performance of  statutory duties amounts           to an  abuse of  process of  law  and  has  to  be           remedied by the court particularly when the public           interest suffers  thereby. Hence  if there  is  an           unreasonably long  and un-explained  delay in  the           State Government  passing orders under section 68D           of the  Act, the Court may issue a mandamus to the           State Government to dispose of 686           the case  under section  68D of  the Act  within a           specified time  or may in an appropriate case even           issue a  writ in the nature of certiorari quashing           the scheme and a writ in the nature of prohibition           under section  68C of  the Act because section 68D           does not  confer an  unfettered discretion  on the           State Government  to deal  with  the  case  as  it           likes. The  power under  section  68D  has  to  be           exercised  having   due  regard   to  the   public           interest.      It is  not denied  that during  the period  of 20 years since the publication of the draft scheme there has been lot of development  in or  around the  area or routes covered by it. Hence  it can no longer be said that the proposal in the draft scheme  would satisfy the requirements of section 68-C of the  Act which  provides that the transport service which is proposed to be introduced in respect of any route or area to  the   exclusion,  complete  or  partial,  of  all  other operators should  be  efficient,  adequate,  economical  and properly  co-ordinated   service.  This   Court  has   given substantial reasons  in Yogeshwar Jaiswal’s case (supra) for quashing a scheme published under section 68-D of the Act if there has  been unreasonable delay in the publication of the approved scheme  under section  68-D of  the Act.  We do not find that there is any justification in the circumstances of this case  to keep  the proceedings  pending any longer. The fact that the Central Government and the State Government of Rajasthan have  not  given  their  approval/consent  to  the scheme cannot be considered as an extenuating circumstance.      We, therefore,  quash the draft scheme, that is, scheme No. 72  of 1965  published under section 68-C of the Act and all the  proceedings which have taken place pursuant thereto till now including the order passed by the Special Secretary of the  Government of  Madhya Pradesh thereon and we issue a direction  to  the  respondents  not  to  take  any  further proceedings hereafter pursuant to scheme No. 72 of 1965.      This  order   does  not  prevent  the  State  Transport Undertaking of the State of Madhya Pradesh from taking fresh steps for  publishing a  scheme under  section  68-C  if  it thinks that  it is  necessary  to  do  so.  As  regards  the application said  to have been made by the petitioner in the year 1968,  we feel that it is not necessary to revive it at this distance  of time.  The petitioner  may  if  he  is  so advised file a fresh application for a permit and 687 if he  makes such  an application it shall be disposed of in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

accordance  with   law   after   inviting   objections   and representations to it from the concerned parties.      This petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. A.P.J.                                     Petition allowed. 688