Venkataramiah, J. - (1.) This is a petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Ujjain in the State of Madhya Pradesh for the issuance of stage carriage permit under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to operate a stage carnage 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 S. 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 S. 68-D of, the Act his application was kept pending by the Regional Transport Authority, Ujjain Region, Ujjain by its order dated Jan. 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 S. 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.
(2.) 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 quahsed. In reply to the said notice a counter affidavit has been ,filed, the deponent of which is B. M. Saxena, Traffic Superintendent, Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the draft scheme, that is, scheme No. 72 was published under S. 68-C of the Act on Dec. 31, 1965. The objections and representations filed in respect of the said scheme were heard 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 publication under sub-sections (2) and (3) of S. 68-D of the Act. It would appear that the scheme in question involved certain inter-State routes and that it had to be approved by the Central Government as required by the proviso to sub-sec. (3) of S. 68-D of the Act and also assented to by the State Government of Rajasthan. The State Government has 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.
(3.) From the foregoing it is clear that the draft scheme which was published in the year 1965 has not yet received the approval under S. 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 Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. In support of his contention, the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in Yogeshwar Jaiswal v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1985 SC 516. In that decision this Court has observed at pages 518-519 thus: "The provisions of S. 68C and S. 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 S. 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 unexplained delay in the State Government passing orders under S. 68D of the Act, the Court may issue a mandamus to the State Government to dispose of the case under S. 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 directing the State Government not to proceed with the consideration of the scheme published under S. 68C of the Act because S. 68D does not confer an unfettered discretion on the State Government to deal with the case as it likes. The power under S. 68D has to be exercised having due regard to the public interest.";