GAJRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A draft scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to nationalise Saharanpur-Shahdra-Delhi route, prepared by Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow was published on 29-9-1959. The Allahabad High Court by its judgments D/- 31-10-1961 and 7-2-1962 upheld the scheme as against 50 operators but quashed the same as against 50 oeprators holding that they should be granted an opportunity of hearing. These 50 operators were those who had laid challenge to the validity of the scheme by filing two groups of writ petitions consisting of 32 and 18 operators respectively. Judgments of Allahabad High Court were upheld by this Court in Jeewan Nath Wahal vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (Civil Appeal No. 1616 of 1968 decided on 3-4-1968). (reported in 1968 SC Notes) 369). Out of these 50 operators some of them filed suits in different Courts and by virtue of interim orders they were successful in scuttling the hearing and keeping the scheme pending for well over 20 years. The matter came up before this Court in Shri Chand vs. Government of U.P., (1985) 4 SCC 169 wherein vide its judgment D/- 23-8-1985 a two Judges Bench of this Court directed the scheme to be quashed solely on the ground that the delay of 26 years in disposing of the objections had resulted in violation of Articles 14 and 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution. The Government was directed to frame the scheme afresh, if necessary.

(2.) Pursuant to the above direction, the U.P.S.R.T.C., Lucknow framed a draft scheme and published the same vide notification No. 1239 RW/1056 RW-85 D/- 13-2-1986. The scheme so published included not only Saharanpur-Delhi route but 38 others in all 39 routes. Objections were preferred against the scheme. While the draft scheme and the objections were so pending the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force with effect from 1-7-1989. Clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 217 of the 1988 Act provided that notwithstanding repeal of the 1939 Act any scheme made under Section 68-C of the 1939 Act and pending immediately before the commencement of this Act shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Section 100 of the 1988 Act. The competent authority held the proposed scheme to have lapsed by operation of Section 100(4) of the 1988 Act which provides that where a proposed scheme is not approved within a period of one year from the date of its publication, the proposal shall be deemed to have lapsed. The matter travelled upto this Court and was disposed of by judgment D/- 31st March, 1992 delivered in C.A. Nos. 1198-1201 of 1992 (Ram Krishna Verma vs. State of U.P. (since reported as (1992) 2 SCC 620. This case was confined to Saharanpur-Shahdra-Delhi route only. This Court held that in Jeewan Nath Wahal's case (Civil Appeal No. 1616 of 1968 decided on 3-4-1968) (reported in 1968 S.C. (Notes) 369) this Court while dealing with this very scheme had held that the scheme had become final except for the purpose of hearing the 50 operators who had challenged the scheme and the two-Judges Bench which dealt with and decided Shri Chand's case (supra) was not justified in quashing the proposed scheme by passing Jeewan Nath Wahal's case which was a three-Judges Bench decision. This Court further held that the fresh draft scheme under Section 68-C D/- 13-2-1986 must therefore be construed to be a draft scheme only in relation to 50 existing operators as per the directions ultimately emerging in Jeewan Nath Wahal's case (1968 SC (Notes) 369). The Court further observed tha the 50 operators who were to be heard (regarding Saharanpur-Delhi route) had made a blatant abuse of the process of the Court by delaying hearing as directed in Jeewan Nath Wahal's case and therefore, they had forfeited their right of hearing. In exercise of the power conferred by Article 142(1) of the Constitution this Court held that the 50 operators could not be permitted to drag the litigation which should be brought to an end and as the objections preferred by them had outlived their purpose, hearing of their objections was rendered a procedural formality with no tangible result. The Court therefore directed the competent authority to approve the scheme within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the judgment and publish the approved scheme in the gazette.

(3.) It appears that the competent authority, which was seized of the hearing of several objections filed before it and had in fact appointed a date of hearing, abruptly closed the hering, approved the scheme and directed the same to be published. The approved scheme was published in the Government Gazette vide notification No. 1635/XXX-2-93-365-85 D/- 29-5-1993. The preamble to the notification states that the approved scheme was being published in exercise of the powers under sub-section (2) of Section 100 of the 1988 Act and "in view of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. Nos. 1198, 1199, 1200 and 1201 of 1992 Shri Ram Krishna Verma vs. State of U.P." The approved scheme includes all the 39 routes as proposed in the draft scheme published vide notification D/- 13-2-1986.