- (1.) These six special appeals involve a common question, although they are based on some different facts, and therefore, they are being disposed of by a single judgment.
(2.) It may at once be stated that the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in these cases, the schemes, which had been published under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') had not been approved for a considerable long time, more than seven years in each case, and therefore, these schemes had become outdated and are liable to be quashed. In order to appreciate the contention, the dates on which the various schemes were published as draft schemes, the dates on which schemes were approved; the dates on which they were notified and implemented are given in a tabular form below along with the names of the parties and the routes concerned: JUDGEMENT_84_LAWS(RAJ)9_19891.html In support of the contention of the learned counsel that these schemes having become outdated and inappropriate, they are liable to be quashed, Reliance was placed upon Yogeshwar Jaiswal v. State Transport Appellate Authority; AIR 1985 SC 516; Phoolchand v. Regional Transport Authority, AIR 1986 SC 119; Srichand v. Govt. of U.P., AIR.1986 SC 242 and Onkar Singh v. Regional Transport Authority, Agra, AIR 1986 SC 1719. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-- R.S.R.T.C. urged that although there had been some delay in the approval and notification of the draft schemes, but now all these schemes have already been approved and notified and implemented and therefore, the mere fact that the draft schemes were approved after considerable delay, should not be a ground for striking them down.
(3.) We have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions and are clearly of the opinion that the appellants' contention cannot be accepted in the circumstances of the cases and the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are clearly distinguishable.;