SHRI CHAND ETC.versusGOVERNMENT OF U.P. LUCKNOW & ORS.

    688

A
                             SHRI CHAND ETC.
                                   v.
                   GOVERNMENT OF U.P. LUCKNOW & ORS.

                            AUGUST 23, 1985
B
                [E.s. VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ ·]

         Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 32 and 19 (1) (g) - Delay
    in performance of statutory duties - Whether violates -
    Fundamental Right - s. 68-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1959.

         Motor Vehicles Act 1939, s. 68 (C) and 68 (D) - Draft scheme
c   to operate stage carriages - Unreasonable delay in the approval
    and publication of the scheme - Whether renders the scheme bad in
    law.

         The State Government of Uttar Pradesh after overruling
    objections approved a draft scheme and published it under sub-
    section (3) of section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 on
D
    29th September, 1959 to authorise the State Transport Undertaking
    of Uttar Pradesn to operate state carriages on the inter-state
    route between Saharanpur and Delhi to the total exclusion of all
    other operators. The validity of the scheme was challenged before
    the High Court of Allahabad by 50 operators. The High Court by
    its judgment dated October 30, 1961 directed the State Government
E
    not to enforce the approved scheme against the said operators and
    also ordered that a fresh enquiry into the question whether the
    scheme should be approved or not, be held. The approved scheme
    became final as regards other operators. The result was that
    while the 50 operators who had filed Writ Petitions were able to
    operate their stage carriages on the route,· those who had not
F   filed the writ petitions could not operate. The u.p. State Road
    Transport Corporation however commenced to ·operate its stage
    carriage too.

         The respondent State Government has not· been able to hear
    the objections to the scheme as directed by the High Court in
G
    1961 because of certain orders of injunction passed by the Civil
    Courts restraining the State Government from proceeding with the
    hearing in suits filed by or at the instance of one or the other
    of the 50 operators who have been running their services on the
    route all these 24 years.
H




                                                                        ...•
                      . SllRI CHAND v. GOVT. OF U.P.             689


      1be petitioners in their petitions UDder Art. 32 questioned       A
 the validity of the proceedings . pending before the State Govern-
 ment pursuant to the draft scheme published under Sec. 68-C of
 the Motor Vehicles Act 1939.

         Allowing the Writ Petitions,
                                                                        B
      llELD: 1. It is very strange tbat Civil Courts. bave issued
 orders of injunction from time to time effectively preventing the
 State Government from disposing of the matter. This is a caae in
 which the Civil Courts should not have issued orders of injunc-
 tion at all since such suits are barred UDder· sec. 9 of the Code
 of Civil Procedure. ( 690 H]                                           c
     I                                                            .
      2. Delay in performance of statutory duties amounts to an
 abuse of process of law and bas to be remedied by the Court
 particul.arly When the public interest suffers thereby. [691 E-F]

        In the instant case, the delay is in the order of 26 years.     D
  The situation created by the unreasonable delay in the approval
  of the scheme bas not merely resulted in the violation of Art 14
  of the Constitution. but. also of the fundamental right of the
  other. operators guaranteed under Art 19 (1) (g) ofthe Constitu-
  tion. Therefore; the draft scheme published on FebruarY 26, 1959
  and the proceedings which have taken place pursuant thereto are
  quashed. The State Government is directed not to proceed with the     E
  bearing of the matter. It is open to the State Transport Under-
. taking to publish a fresh draft scheme UDder Section 68-C of the
  Act if it is necessary to do so. [692 C, 691 A-BJ

       YogesJ.ar Jaiml etc.v. State Transport Appellate TribuDal
 and Ors A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 516, 8-1 Chaad Gupta v. RegfC!ll!il           F
 'fiansport Autbority Ujjaia & Ors. [1985] Supp. 2 s.c.11.. 682
 followed.

      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION       Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 1174 and
 11851 Of 1985.
                                                                        G
         (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

      U.R. Lalit and B.s. Chauhan for the Petitioner in W.P. No.
 1174 of 1985.

      K.K. Venugopal and R.P. Singh for the petitioner in W.P. No.      H
 11851 of 1985.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
    690           SUPREME COURT REPORTS          [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.

A         VENKATAllAMlAH·, J • These two petitions are filed under
    Article 32 of the constitution. The petitioners have questioned
    the validity of the proceedings which are pending before the
    State Government pursuant to a draft scheme published · under
    section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter
    referred to as 'the Act') on February 26, 1959 proposing to
B   authorise the State Transport Undertaking of Uttar Pradesh to
    operate stage carriages on the inter state route between Saharan-
    pur and .Delhi to the total exclusion of all other operators,
    After overruling the objections which had been received in
    response to the said draft scheme the State Government approved
    the scheme and published it under sub-section (3) of section 68-D
    of the Act on September 29, 1959. The validity of the said
c   approved scheme was challenged before the High Court of Allahabad
    by 32 operators. By its judgment dated October 30, 1961 the High
    Court of Allahabad directed the. State Government not to enforce
    the approved scheme against the said 32 persons who had filed the
    writ petitions and it further directed that the State Government
    should hold a· fresh enquiry i f necessary into the question
    whether :the scheme should be approved or not. Thereafter in
D   another batch of writ petitiona disposed of on February 7, 1962 a
    similar order was passed in favour of 18 other petitioners. The
    approved · scheme, however, became final as regards other
    operators. ·The result was that while the petitioners who had
    filed the writ petitions were able to operate their stage
    carriages ;on the route those who had not filed the writ petitions
E   could not· operate. The .u.P. State Road Transport Corporation
    however c6mmenced to operate its stage carriages too. Even though
    the judgment was delivered by the High Court of Allahabad in the
    year 1961. it has not been possible for the State Government to
    consider' whether approval should be given to the draft scheme
    either-with or without modification as regards the 50 operators
F   pursuant~ to the judgment of .the High Court. All the petitioners
    in the writ petitions who were permitted to operate their
    vehicles[have been running their services all these 24 years. It
    has thus, resulted in discrimination. We are informed that the
    State Government has not been able to hear the objections to the
    scheme as per the judgment of the High Court because of certain
G   orders oi injunction passed by the Civil Courts restraining the
    State Government from proceeding with the hearing, in suits filed
    by· or atlthe instance of one or the other of the 50 operators who
    have been running their services on the route in question. It is
    very strange that the Civil Courts have issued such orders of
    injunction fram time to time thus effectively ·preventing the
H   State Government from disposing of the matter. We are of the view
         SllRI CHAND v. GOVT. OF U.P. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.)     691


that this is a case in which Civil Courts should not have issued     A
orders of injunction at all since such suits are barred under
section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Be that it as it lllSY,
the situation created by the unreasonable delay in the approval
of the scheme has not merely resulted in the violation of Article
14 of the Constitution but also of the fundamental right of the
other operators guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) ofthe Conati-    B
tution. This Court in Yogesbt.Jar Jaisval etc. v. State Trallspott
Appellate Tribunal and Ors. A.I.R. 1985 s.c. 516, has observed at
page 518-519 thus:

            "The provisions of section 68C and section 680 of the
           Act clearly indicate that .any scheme which is intended   C
            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,      D
            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         E
            purposeless. Hence there is need for speedy disposal
            of the case under section 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       F
            long and unexplained delay in the State Government
            passing orders under section 680 of the Act, the Court
            may issue a mandan11s to the State Government       to
            dispose of the case under section 680 of the Act
           within a specified time or may in an appropriate case
            even issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing   G
            the scheme and     writ· in the nature of prohibition
            directing the State Government not to proceed with the
          · consideration of the scheme published under section
            68C of the Act because section 680 does not confer an
            unfettered discretion on the State Government to deal
           with the case as it likes. The power under section 680    H
            has to be exercised having due regard to the public
            interest."
    692           SuPREME COURT REPORTS            (1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.


         Following the observations in the above decision in Yogetlllillr
    Jaiswal 'a case (supra), in Pbool Chand Gupta v. llf:&lonal
    Tnmsport Authority, Ujjain & Ors· (1985] Supp. 2 s.c.R. 682 we
    have quashed a draft scheme published in the year 1965 since it
    had not been approved by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh
    and had not been published as required under section 68-D of the
B
    Act even though a period of 20 years had elapsed from the date of
    publication of the draft scheme. In the instant case the delay is
    in the order of 26 years • In view of the above decisions we allow
    theae writ petitions and quash the impugned scheme published on
    February 26, 1959 and the proceedings which have taken place till
c   now pursuant thereto and direct the State Government not to
    proceed with the hearing of the matter. It is now open to the
    State Transport Undertaking or Uttar Pradesh to publish a fresh
    draft scheme under section 68-C of the Act if it is of opinion
    that it is necessary ·to do so. We, however, permit the State
    Transport· Undertaking to run the stage carriage vehicles which it
    is now running on the route in question under permits issued
D
    pursuant to the scheme which is now quashed, till 28.2.1986 ·or
    till they are replaced by temporary permits to be issued under
    sub section (lA) of section 68-F of the Act after the publication
    of a fresh draft scheme or by permits issued under Chapter IV of
     the Act, whichever is earlier.
E        The writ petitions are accordingly allowed.     There shall be
    no orde~ as to coats.




                                                      Petitions allowed.