- (1.) A short question of law referred to this Full Bench in this bunch of petitions* is whether the Transport Scheme, as finally notified on 3.5.2011, has been published within a period of one year from the date of its proposal in the official gazette as per the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the Act'). The reference order made by the Division Bench dated 21.9.2011 reads as under: Mr. H.S. Hooda, learned Advocate General, Haryana has brought to our notice a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Parveen Kumar and another v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 14777 of 2011, decided on 12.08.2011), which upholds the notification/shceme dated 03.05.2011. The aforesaid scheme is also subject matter of challenge in the instant petitions. The principal argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the scheme has to be published in the official gazette within a period of one year from the date of publication of the proposal regarding the scheme in the official gazette under sub Section (1) of Section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the Act'), failing which the proposal would be deemed to have lapsed. Clause 4 of Section 100 of the Act opens with non obstante clause by using the expression 'notwithstanding'. Moreover, the aforesaid issue with regard to effect of notification of the Scheme within one year as per provisions of Sub Section (4) of Section 100 of the Act, has not been considered by the Division Bench in Parveen Kumar's case . Therefore, it would be just and proper to make a reference to the Larger Bench so that the issue may be taken up and the Division Bench judgment is reconsidered. Few facts would be necessary for deciding the substantive question. The respondent State of Haryana vide notification No. S.O. 46/C.A.59/1988/S.99/2010, dated 11.3.2010 (P-1), published a proposal in the official gazette in compliance with the provisions of Section 99 of the Act, which was in supersession of earlier notifications dated 3.11.1993 and 19.1.2001. However, two months later, without publishing the whole scheme in the official gazette, few amendments in the notification dated 11.3.2010 were published on 4.5.2010 (P-2). It is appropriate to mention that the notification dated 4.5.2010 only contained the extracts of the scheme which were published in the newspapers as well. As per the provisions of law, objections were received and the scheme was published on 3.5.2011 (P-4) in pursuance of the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 100 of the Act. In these facts and circumstances it has been pointed out that the final scheme published on 3.5.2011 (P-4) is beyond the period of one year from the date of issuance of notification dated 11.3.2010 (P-1). The respondent State has insisted that the period of one year is to count from the date of amendment published on 4.5.2010 (P-2).
(2.) Mr. M.S. Khaira, Mr. H.S. Sawhney, Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Mr. L.R. Sharma, Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Mr. Inder Pal Goyat and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) have submitted that the scheme, in fact, has lapsed and it could not have been published after 10.3.2011. They have submitted that according to the mandatory requirement of Section 100 (4) of the Act, the period of one year has to commence from the date of publication of the 'Draft Scheme' in the official gazette. According to the learned counsel, the publication of the 'Draft Scheme' later on in the newspapers would have no bearing for reckoning the period of one year because Section 100 (4) does not admit of any other mode of publication of the 'Draft Scheme' except the official gazette. Learned counsel have drawn our attention to sub-section (4) of Section 100 of the Act and argued that the legislature has put the reckoning of period beyond any reasonable doubt and the period of one year is to be reckoned from the date of publication of notification in the official gazette. Therefore, the corrigendum or publication in the newspapers is wholly immaterial.
(3.) Mr. H.S. Hooda, learned Advocate General, Haryana, has however argued that firstly the 'Draft Scheme' as published on 11.3.2010 could not be regarded as publication within the meaning of Section 99 as it was incumbent upon the State to publish the 'Draft Scheme' as per the requirement of Section 99 in one of the vernacular newspaper also. According to the learned counsel the publication in the newspaper was made on 4.5.2010 and the 'Draft Scheme' must be deemed to have been published for the first time on that date. Learned Advocate General has maintained that there is no violation if the date of publication in the newspaper is regarded as commencing point of limitation. Mr. Hooda has further submitted that it was only after the publication in the newspaper that objections by the parties started pouring in, as is evident from the record of this case. It is, thus, maintained by the learned Advocate General that there would be no substantive benefit by reckoning the period of one year from the date of publication in the official gazette because the notification dated 11.3.2010 cannot be regarded as publication of 'Draft Scheme' under Section 99 of the Act. He has also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment upholding the scheme in the case of Parveen Kumar and argued that serious consequences would flow if the scheme is declared to have lapsed. Accordingly, he has submitted that a purposive interpretation must be adopted, which tends to achieve the object of the scheme.;