ONKAR SINGH & OTHERSversusREGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, AGRA & OTHERS

                                                                 735

                                                                       A
                         Cl'lKAR SINGH & O'DIRRS
                                   v.
                     REGIONAL TRANSPORT AllTllORITY,
                            AGRA & O'DIRRS

                            APRIL 23, 1986.
                                                                       B
           [E. S. VENKATARAMIAH AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ. ]

          '!otor Vehicles Act, 1939 ss. 68-C and 68-D - Inordinate
    delay in approving the draft scheme - Whether delay prejudices
    public interest warranting interference by court - Neeo~ssity
    of modifying/approving the draft scheme expeditiously -            c
    Explained.

         The appellants, Private Operators, had obtained
   temporary permits under section 68-F (1-C) of the Motor
   Vehicles Act 1939 on the route Somna-Naujheel. They could not
   obtain permits under Chapter IV of the Act to operate on the
                                                                       D
   said route since a scheme published in 1960 under section 68-C
   of the Act was in force. They were asked to stop plying their
   vehicles. Aggrieved by the stoppage of the running of their
   vehicles, they filed a Writ Petition in the High Court
~contending that once temporary permits were issued under
   Section 68-F(l-C) of the Act, they would remain in force until
                                                                       E
   the draft scheme published under s. 68-C was approved under s.
   68-D of the Act. The High Court dismissed the Petition on the
   ground that since permits had already been issued to the State
. Transport Undertaking, the temporary permits issued to other
 t private operators under section 68-F(l-C) of the Act came to
   an end.
                                                                       F
\
          In the appeal to the Supreme Court, it was contended on
    behalf of the appellants that the draft scheme, published
    under section 68-C of the Act having become stale was liable
    to be quashed due to inordinate delay in completing the
    proceedings under s. 68-D of the Act.                              G
          Allowing the appeal.

          llKLD : l(i) The draft scheme published in the year 1960
    u/s 68-C of the Act is quashed and the Hearing Authority under
    section 68-D of the Act is directed not to proceed with the        H
    hearing of the matter. [740 F)
     736                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS      [19861 2 s.c.R.


A          l.(ii) It is now open to the Uttsr Pradesh State Road;.-
    Transport Corporation to publish, if it so desires a fresh
    scheme under section 68-C of the Act. The Corporation on the
    route in question pursuant to the permits issued under section
    68-F(l-A) or under section 68-F(l-C) of the Act, as the case
    1141 be, are permitted to .operate their stage carriages until
    15,10,1986. If a fresh scheme is published under section 68-C
B   of the Act within that period it shall be open to the
    Corporation to apply for fresh teq>orary permits under section,...-
    68-F(l-A) of the Act. On permits being granted under section
    68-F(l-A) of the Act, all the permits now issued under section
    68-F(l-A) or under section 68-F(l-C) of the Act shall come to
    an end. Until a fresh draft scheme is published under section
C   68-C of the Act, it shall be open to any person to make appli-
    cations for a stage carriage permit under Chapter IV of the
    Act. [740 F-H; 741 A-BJ

           2.(i) The proviso to section 68-F(l-D) of the Act which
    provides that where the period of operation of a permit in
D   relation to any area, route, or portion thereof specified in a
    scheme published under section 68-C of the Act expires after
    such publication, such permit may be renewed for a limited
    period, but the permit so renewed shall cease to be effective
    on the publication of the scheme under sub-section (3) oLi..
    section 68-D of the Act indicates legislative intention
E   regarding the maxilllllll period that may be spent on the
    proceedings which intervene between the date of publication of
    the draft scheme under section 68-C of the Act and the
    publication of the approved or modified scheme under section ·
    68-D(3) of the Act. It suggests that it cannot be longer than t
    3 to 5 years which is usually the period during which a permit
F   can be in force without renewal as provided in section 58 of f
    the Act. It could never have been in the contemplation of
    Parliament that the period for approving a scheme with or
    without modification or for rejecting it could be 25 years as
    in this case. [739 E-H)

G          2.(ii) Two of the undesirable effects of the inordinate
    delay in completing the proceedings under section 68-D of the
    Act are : (i) it exhibits lack of interest on the part of the-+
    adm:l.nistraton in bringing into effect administrative decisions
    without undue delay; and (ii) the public interest suffers as
    the membtirs of the public are denied normal stage carriage
H
                      ONKAR SINGH v. R.T.A. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.]         737


    ~ services of an improved kind because the operators who are              A
     'operating on temporary permits would have no incentive to
      develop any enduring goodwill and naturally not interested in
      providing better services. [740 A-Cl

              In the instant case, sufficient grounds have not been
       made out for sustaining the draft scheme at this distance of           B
       time. It is seen that there is tremendous pressure for the
    -~_grant of permits to ply stage carriages on the route. Yet the
       State Transport Undertaking which is expected to provide
       adequate, efficient, economic and co-ordinated service has
       failed to do so even after twenty five years have elapsed. It
       may be that some operators had adopted delaying tactics. But
       the Hearing Authority under section 68-D of the Act should             c
       have taken necessary steps to conclude the proceedings early.
       The delay of nearly a quarter of a century is i.nexcusable. The
       draft scheme has virtually become out-moded. Therefore, there
       has been clear disobedience of the provisions of the Act.
        [739 C-E]
'                                                                             D
               Yogeslmar Jaill1flll v. State Tramport Appellate Tribunal
        & Ors., [1985] 2 s.c.R. 790, Pbool aiam Gipu v. Regional
        TrllDllport .Authority, Ujjain &Ors., [1985] 4 s.c.c, 190, Shri
     -l Qiand y, Gove~ of U.P. h1cknaw & Ors., [1985] 4 S,C.C.
          169, relied upon.
                                                                              E
                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   Civil Appeal No. 1360 of
          1986.

    +       From the Judgment and Order dated 13th January, 1986 of
     \the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. 1613 of 19!!6.                     F

                  Mrs. Rani Chhabra and R.K. Jain for the Appellants.

                0,P, Rana, Anil Dev Singh, Raju Ramachandran and Mrs.
          Shobha Dikshit for the Respondents.
                                                                              G
                  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     'r         Vl'liKATARAKIAH, J. The appellants are carrying on the
          business of running stage carriages in the State of Uttar
          Pradesh. They had obtained temporary permits under section
          68-F(l-C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter
                                                                              H
          referred to as 'the Act') on the route Somna-Naujheel. They
    738                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS      [19861 2 s.c.R.

A
      could not obtain permits under Chapter IV of the Act to .'>-
     operate on the said route since a scheme published under
     section 68-C of the Act in the year 1960 was in force. It
     would appear that the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport
     Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation')
     applied for fifteen temporary permits for operating its stage
     carriages on the route i.n question and obtained them from the
B
     Regional Transporc Authority, Agra under section 68-F(l-A) of
     the Act as per it.s order dated 31,1.1984, But the Corporation,..4,-
     introduced only five services against fifteen permits. Thus



                                                                        t
     there were ten vacancies. The Regional Transport Authority
     granted ten temporary permits to ten private operators in
c    those ten vacancies. One Devender Pal Singh who was holding a
     non-temporary permit issued under Chapter IV of the Act filed
     a revision petition under section 64-A of the Act before the
     State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The petition was
     dismissed. On account of the pressure of traffic the number of
     temporary permits was increased to thirty four. The
     Corporation was granted these additional permits. But it
D
     failed to operate its services under all the permits issued to
     it. The private operators who wanted to operate the vehicles
    were not granted temporary permits. The appellants were asked
     to stop plying their vehicles under the temporary permits
     obtained by them. Aggreived by the stoppage of the running of •
     their vehicles, they filed a writ petition in the High Court
E
     of Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 1613 of
     1985 contending that once temporary permits were issued under
     section 68-F(l-C) of the Act they would remain in force until
     the draft scheme published under section 68-C was approved
    under section 68-D of the Act. The High Court being of the t
    opinion that on permits being issued to the State Transport
F
    Undertaking, i.e., the Corporation in this case, the temporary I
    permits issued to other private operators under section
    68-F(l-C) of the Act came to an end, dismissed the writ
    petition. Aggreived by the Judgment in the writ petition, the
    appellants have filed this appeal by special leave. When this
    petition came up for admission on April 1, 1986 before this
G
    Court it was urged by the appellants that the draft scheme
    published under section 68-C of the Act having become stale
    was liable to be quashed in view of some of the recent -f
    decisions rendered by this Court, On the basis of the above
    submissions notices were issued to the State Government and
H   the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation - the
                ONKAR SINGH v. R.T.A. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.]          739


  ..._.respondent herein to show cause why the draft scheme should         A
      not be quashed. The counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf
      of the Corporation opposing the prayer made in this a~peal.

              The draft scheme admittedly was published under section
       68-C of the Act on June 25, 1960 more than 25 years ago and it
       has not yet been approved. It is still in the stage of a draft      B
       scheme. We have been taken through the counter-affidavit filed
  - ,}-On behalf of the Corporation setting out the several steps
       taken in the proceedings before the Hearing Authority under
       section 68-D of        the Act.     On going through the
       counter-affidavit we are not convinced that sufficient grounds
       have been made out for sustaining the draft scheme at this
       distance of time. It is seen that there is tremendous               c
      _pressure for the grant of permits to ply stage carriages on
       the route. Yet the State Transport Undertaking which is
,      expected to provide adequate, efficient,           economic and
       co-ordinated service has failed to do so even after twenty
       five years have elapsed. It may be that some operators had
       adopted delaying tactics. But the Hearing Authority under           D
       section 68-D of the Act should have taken necessary steps to
       conclude the proceedings early. The delay of nearly a quarter
       of a century is inexcusable. The draft scheme has virtually
    J_become out-moded. We rind that there has been clear dis-
        obedience of the provisions of the Act. The proviso to section
        68-F(l-D) of the Act which provides that where the period of       E
        operation of a permit in relation to any area, route, or
        portion thereof specified in a scheme published under section
        68-C of the Act expires after such publication, such permit
   t    may be renewed for a limited period, but the permit so renewed
        shall cease to be effective on the publication of the scheme
    \ under sub-section (3) of section 68-D of the Act indicates the       F
        legislative intention regarding the maxi1111m period that may be
        spent on the proceedings which intervene between the date of
        publication of the draft scheme under section 68-C of the Act
        and the publication of the approved or modified scheme under
        section 68-0(3) of the Act. It suggests that it cannot be
        longer than three to five years which is usually the period        G
        during which a permit can be in force without renewal as
    }· provided in section 58 of the Act. It could never have been in
        the conte~lation of Parliament. that the period for approving
        a scheme with or without modification or for rejecting it
        could be twenty five years as in this case. The undesirable
                                                                           H
    740                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS    (19861 2 s.c.R.
A
    effects of the inordinate delay in completing the proceedings>--
    under section 68-D of the Act are many. Two of them are :

               (i) it exhibits lack of interest on the part of the
               administration    in     bringing    into    effect
               administrative decisions without undue delay, and
B
               (ii) the public interest suffers as the members of
               the public are denied normal stage carriage{-
               services of an improved kind because the operators



                                                                      4
               who are operating on temporary permits would have
               no incentive to develop any enduring good will and
c              naturally not interested in providing better
               services.
         The period of such uncertainty should not be allowed to
    continue any longer in the instant case.
D         In Yogeshwar Jaiewal v. State Transport Appellate
    Tribunal &Ors., (1985) 2 S.C.R. 790, this Court has explained
    how inordinate delay in acting under section 68-D of the Act
    would prejudice the public interest. Following the above
    decision in Pbool a.and Gupta v. Regional Transport Authority,
    Ujjain & Ors., [1985) 4 S.C.C. 190, and in Sbri Qiand v. "-
E   Government of U.P., l~cknor;r & Ors., (1985) 4 S.C.C. 169, this
    Court has quashed the schemes published under section 68-C of
    the Act since they had not been approved by the authority
    concerned under section 68-D of the Act within a reasonable        •
    time. Following the three decisions referred to above we quash+
    the scheme which is the subject matter of this appeal and
F   direct the Hearing Authority under section 68-D of the Act not /
    to proceed with the hearing of the matter. It is now open to.
    the Corporation to publish, if it so desires, a fresh scheme
    under section 68-C of the Act. We, however, permit the
    Corporation and others who are at present operating stage
    carriage vehicles on the route in ques.tion pursuant to the
G   permits issued under section 68-F(l-A) or under section 68-F
    ( 1-C) of the Act as the case may be to operate their stage
    carriages until 15.10.1986. If a fresh scheme is published
    under section 68-C of the Act within that period it shall be -1
    open to the Corporation to apply for fresh temporary permits
    under section 68-F(l-A) of the Act. On permits being granted
H   under section 68-F(l-A) of the Act all the permits now issued
                 ONKAR SINGH v. R.T.A, [VENKATARAMIAH, J.]       741


~      under section 68-F(l-A) or under section 68-1"(1-C) of the Act   A
       shall come to an end. Until a fresh draft scheme is published
       under section 68-C of the Act, it shall be open to any person
       to make applications for a stage carriages permit under
       Chapter IV of the Act. The Regional Transport Authority may
       also grant, if it finds that it is necessary to do so in the
       public interest, temporary permits under section 62 of the Act   B
       until the draft scheme is published.
- }-
            This appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no
       order as to costs.

                                                                        c

       M.L.A.                                         Appeal allowed.




  t
  \