Phool Chand Gupta Vs. Regional
Tansport Authority, Ujjain & Ors [1985] INSC 185 (23 August 1985)
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) 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
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]
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 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, 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
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.
Back
