S.R.Singh, J. - (1.) Impugned in Writ No. 9332 of 2002 is the validity and legality of the order dated 3.11.2001 passed by the Hearing Authority and in the other writ petition, the validity of the scheme dated 13.2.1986 published under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'Repealed Act') as it stands modified by the aforestated impugned order is also questioned.
(2.) The facts insofar as they are relevant to the controversy involved herein are briefly stated as these. A draft scheme under Section 68C of the Repealed Act was published on February 26, 1959 with a view to nationalise the Saharanpur-Sahadara-Delhi route. The draft scheme aforestated as approved was published on September 29, 1959 but in two groups of writ petitions filed in this Court, the same came to be quashed by judgments dated October 31, 1961 and February 7, 1962 as against 50 operators on the ground that they were not afforded opportunity of hearing and was upheld against other 50 operators. The judgments of this Court were upheld by the Supreme Court in Jeevan Nath Bahl v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, in Civil Appeal No. 1616 of 1968 decided on April 3, 1960. holding that, "the effect of the order passed by the High Court in the two groups of writ petitions was clearly that (he scheme in its essence was not affected, but it was directed not to be enforced against 32 petitioners who had applied in the first group of writ petitions and as against 18 petitioners in the second group of petitioners. The true effect of the High Court's order, observed the Supreme Court, was that "there is in existence a scheme which must have the statutory operation contemplated by Section 68F of the Motor Vehicles Act". However, because of civil litigation and injunction orders obtained by some of the operators, the matter remained pending for over 25 years and in Sri Chand v. Government of U. P., 1988 (4) SCC 169, the Supreme Court held that the delay of 26 years in disposal of the objections resulted in violation of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The draft scheme dated 26.2.1959, which was confined to Delhi-Saharanpur route was accordingly quashed with a direction to the State Government to frame the scheme afresh, if necessary. Pursuant thereto, the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation published the draft scheme dated 13.2.1986 not only in respect of Saharanpur-Delhi route but in respect of 39 routes including Saharanpur-Sahadara-Delhi route (mentioned at serial No. 1 of the draft scheme dated 13.2.1986). The draft scheme published on February 13, 1986, was, however, held by the Hearing Authority to have lapsed under Section 100 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'new Act') which came into force on July 1, 1989 during the pendency of the draft scheme. In the writ petition filed by the State Transport Corporation challenging the said order, the High Court, upheld the order passed by the Hearing Authority by its judgment dated March 16, 1990. S.L.P. No. 6300 of 1991 was filed against the said judgment of the High Court. To complete the chain of facts, it may be stated that in the meanwhile, after the enforcement of the new Act, certain persons applied for and were granted permits for Saharanpur-Ghaziabad via Sahadara routes. Ram Krishna Verma and Ors. filed a writ petition in the Lucknow Bench of the High Court questioning the validity of permit granted to certain persons in respect of Saharanpur to Ghaziabad via Sahadara route, etc. The writ petitions came to be dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated July 23, 1990. Ram Krishna Verma and Ors. filed appeal (S.L.P.) in the Supreme Court. Special Leave Petition Nos. 9701/90, 9702/90 and 2083/91 were also filed against the High Court's judgment dismissing writ petitions in which grant of permits under Section 80 of the new Act on the Muzaffarnagar to Chausana ; Ghaziabad to Sahadara ; Saharanpur to Ghaziabad covered and partly nationalised routes were questioned. These appeals were decided by a common judgment.
(3.) The matter went up to the Supreme Court again and in Ram Krishna Verma and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors., 1992 (2) SCC 620. the Supreme Court, inter alia, held that the approved scheme dated September 29, 1959 in respect of Saharanpur-Sahadara-Delhi route would continue to be a valid scheme under the new Act in that the orders passed by the Allahabad High Court merged in Jeevan Nath Bahl's case, wherein protection was given only to 50 private operators including the appellants therein to be heard on their objections ; the fresh draft scheme dated February 13. 1986. had not been lapsed and would continue to be in operation ; the Hearing Authority would lodge the objections of the 50 operators including the appellants therein with the direction and approve the draft scheme dated 13.2.1986, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the judgment ; and publish the approved scheme in the gazette ; the permits granted to the 50 operators or any other shall stand cancelled from that date, if not having expired in the meanwhile ; no permits shall be renewed ; all the permits granted to the 50 operators Including the appellants would be seized and cancelled ; and the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation would obtain required additional permits, if need be, and put the stage carriages on the routes to provide transport service to the travelling public immediately on publication of the approved draft scheme in the State Gazette. The Hearing Authority abruptly closed the hearing, approved the scheme and directed the same to be published and accordingly, the approved scheme came to be published in the Government Gazette vide Notification No. 1635/XXX/2-93-365-85 dated 29.5.1993. The approved scheme, according to the preamble of the Notification, was being published in exercise of the power under Section 100 (2) of the new Act in view of the direction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Verma v. State of U. P. and Ors., JT 1992 (2) SC 545. The approved scheme includes all the 39 routes as proposed in the draft scheme published vide Notification dated 13.2.1986 wherein was included Saharanpur-Sahadara-Delhi route at serial No. 1. Several petitions came to be filed in the High Court challenging the draft scheme. A Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 19.11.1999 dismissed all the petitions holding that the scheme had stood approved by the Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Verma's case as well as Nisar Ahmad and Ors. v. State of U. P. and others. 1994 (Supp) 3 SCC 460. On the matter being taken to the Supreme Court by means of special leave petitions filed by Gajraj Singh and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors., 2001 (3) AWC 2002 (SC) : JT 2001 (5) SC 140, their Lordships of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 19.11.1999 and inter alia, directed that : (a) the objections filed against the draft scheme dated 13.2.1986 insofar as they relate to the 38 routes listed at serial numbers 2 to 39, i.e., routes other than Saharanpur-Sahadara-Delhi route "shall be heard and disposed of by the competent authority on its own merit in accordance with law" ; (b) only such objections will be available to be heard and decided as were filed within 30 days from the date of the publication of the draft scheme in the Official Gazette and which were maintainable to be heard in accordance with Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, read with Section 100 (2) of the new Act ; (c) since the period of 30 days of filing of objections had already come to an end before 1.7.1988, i.e., the date of coining into force of the new Act, only such objections would be heard and disposed of as "were already preferred" within thirty days of the publication of the draft scheme in that only such objections would be "deemed to have been preferred under Section 100 (1) of 1988 Act" so as available for being heard and determined by virtue of the saving clause contained in Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 217 of the 1988 Act ; (d) the draft scheme would meet the fate consistently with the decision on objections and the approved scheme dated 29.5.1993 shall be accordingly modified or annulled in so far as routes specified at serial Nos. 2 to 39 are concerned and in case of dismissal of objections, the approved scheme, as notified on 29.5.1993, shall continue to remain in operation ; and (e) in so far as Saharanpur-Delhi route is concerned, no objection in that regard shall be heard and the scheme as regards the route shall be deemed to have been approved and maintained in terms of this Courts direction in Ram Krishna Verma's case (supra).;