Important point
Only scheme as regards Nationalisation of Saharanpur-Delhi route by UPSRTC shall be deemed to have been approved and maintained in terms of Supreme Court’s directions in Rama Krishna Verma v. State of U.P. & Ors. but objections filed against the draft scheme dated 18.2.86 in so far as they relate to remaining 38 routes listed at S.Nos. 2 to 39 of the scheme, shall be heard and disposed of by the Competent Authority on their own merits and in accordance with law in terms of directions in this judgment.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1939—Section 68-C—Nationalistation of Saharanpur - Shahadra - Delhi Route by Government for U.P.S.R.T.C.—High Court upholding the scheme against 50 operators and quashed against other 50—Upheld by Supreme Court 3 Judge Bench in Jeevan Nath Vahal’s case but quashed by two Judge Bench in Shri Chand case—Government was directed to frame new scheme—New Scheme framed not only for Saharanpur-Shahadra-Delhi route but also for 38 more routes—M.V. Act, 1988 came in force—Under Section 100 of 1988 Act the competent authority held proposed scheme having lapsed—Supreme Court in Rama Krishan Verma’s case upheld Saharanpur - Shahadra - Delhi route scheme only—Competent Authority however, approved all the schemes on the basis of said case—Upheld by High Court—Whether correct? (No)—Appeals and intervention applications allowed accordingly.
       Held : Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and has to be set aside as regards 38 routes, i.e., routes other than Saharanpur-Delhi route finding mention in the draft and approved schemes at serial No.1. The High Court has, in our opinion, clearly erred in holding that the decision of this Court in Ram Krishna Verma’s case, 1992(2) SCC 620 had the effect of approving the draft scheme dated 13.2.1986 in its entirety and after the decision in Ram Krishna Verma’s case nothing had remained to be done by the competent authority except to approve the draft scheme and notify the same as approved scheme. We have carefully perused the decision in Ram Krishna Verma’s case. The decision is confined to Saharanpur-Shahdra-Delhi route alone. The tracing of the history of the litigation and the reference to earlier decisions of this Court wherein the nationalisation of this route was put in issue clearly shows that this Court was dealing with Saharanpur-Delhi route and the conduct of those 50 operators who had objected to the nationalisation of that route and were thereafter indulging into wanton and vexatious litigation and thereby frustrating the hearing. In the judgments of the High Court dated 31.10.1961 and 7.2.1962, referred to in the earlier part of this judgment, and the decisions of this Court in Jeewan Nath Wahal (Civil Appeal No. 1616 of 1968 decided on 3.4.1968) and Shri Chand (1985) 4 SCC 169 the dispute which had come up for determination was confined to that route alone. In Shri Chand’s case this Court had directed the Government to frame the scheme afresh, if necessary, and obviously that direction related to Saharanpur-Delhi route. Acting on that direction, notification dated 13.2.1986 was published which included not only Saharanpur-Delhi route but 38 other routes as well. Objections were now filed as against the proposed nationalisation of 38 routes also. By reference to decision in Ram Krishna Verma’s case the competent authority could not have abruptly closed the hearing of objections which related to such 38 routes nor the High Court could have upheld approval of the scheme without disposal of the objections preferred against proposed nationalisation of 38 routes (other than Saharanpur-Delhi route). (Para 7)
       The upshoot of the above discussion is that the appeals are liable to be allowed insofar as the said 38 routes (i.e. other than Saharanpur-Delhi route) are concerned. (Para 10)
       However, it is brought to our notice that on all the 39 routes, the State Road Transport Corporation of U.P. is operating buses ever since 1993 and for that purpose it has made substantial investment by putting the buses on the routes and recruiting employees to conduct, oversee and maintain operation on such nationalised routes. While protecting the statutory right of the operators to be heard under sub-section (2) of Section 100 of the 1988 Act, we have to keep in view the public interest also and therefore we do not deem it proper to quash post haste the notification dated 29.5.93 which has notified the draft scheme dated 18.2.86 as the approved scheme. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case allowing a hearing to the operators on their objections and in the meantime not disturbing the status quo as to operation of buses on the routes in question would meet the ends of justice and we propose to direct accordingly. The appeals are allowed. The Impugned Judgment of the High Court dated 19th November, 1999 is set aside. The writ petitions are partly allowed. It is directed that the objections filed against the draft scheme dated 18.2.86 in so far as they relate to 38 routes listed at serial Nos. 2 to 39 of the scheme, shall be heard and disposed of by the competent authority on their own merits and in accordance with law for which purpose the competent authority shall, within a period of four weeks from today, appoint and notify a date of hearing. We make it clear that only such of the objections shall be available to be heard and decided as were filed within 30 days of the date of publication of the draft scheme in the official gazette and which are maintainable and available to be heard in accordance with Section 68-D of the 1939 Act read with sub-section (2) of Section 100 of the 1988 Act. The draft scheme was notified under Section 68-C of the 1939 Act on 13.2.1986. The period of 30 days for filing objections had come to an end before 1.7.1988, the date of coming into force of the 1988 Act. All that had remained to be done was to hear and dispose of the objections which were already preferred and shall be deemed to have been preferred under Section 100 (1) of the 1988 Act and were available to be heard and determined by virtue of the saving clause contained in clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 217 of the 1988 Act. Thus, the competent authority shall hear all such parties who were entitled in law to be heard on the crucial date, if they had filed their objections within the stipulated period. If the objections or any of them are allowed, the draft scheme shall meet the fate consistently with the decision on objections and the approved scheme dated 29.5.93 shall be accordingly modified or annulled in so far as routes specified at serial Nos. 2 to 39 are concerned. In the event of the objections being dismissed, the approved scheme, as notified on 29.5.93, shall continue to remain in operation. At the risk of repetition we would like to make it clear that in so far as Saharanpur-Delhi route is concerned, no objection in that regard shall be heard and the scheme as regard the said route shall be deemed to have been approved and maintained in terms of this court’s direction in Ram Krishna Verma’s case (supra). No order as to the costs. (Paras 11 and 12)
       Held finally : All the appeals and the intervention applications shall be deemed to have been disposed of in terms of the above direction. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.—A draft scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to nationalise Saharanpur-Shahdra-Delhi route, prepared by Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow was published on 29.9.1959. The Allahabad High Court by its judgments dated 31.10.1961 and 7.2.1962 upheld the scheme as against 50 operators but quashed the same as against 50 operators holding that they should be granted an opportunity of hearing. These 50 operators were those who had laid challenge to the validity of the scheme by filing two groups of writ petitions consisting of 32 and 18 operators respectively. Judgments of Allahabad High Court were upheld by this Court in Jeewan Nath Wahal v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal1. Out of these 50 operators some of them filed suits in different courts and by virtue of interim orders they were successful in scuttling the hearing and keeping the scheme pending for well over 20 years. The matter came up before this Court in Shri Chand v. Government of U.P.2 - wherein vide its judgment dated 23.8.1985 a two-Judges Bench of this Court directed the scheme to be quashed solely on the ground that the delay of 26 years in disposing of the objections had resulted in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Government was directed to frame the scheme afresh, if necessary.

2. Pursuant to the above direction, the U.P.S.R.T.C., Lucknow framed a draft scheme and published the same vide notification No. 1239 RW/1056 RW-85 dated 13.2.1986. The scheme so published included not only Saharanpur-Delhi route but 38 others - in all 39 routes. Objections were preferred against the scheme. While the draft scheme and the objections were so pending the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force with effect from 1.7.1989. Clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 217 of the 1988 Act provided that notwithstanding repeal of the 1939 Act any scheme made under Section 68-C of the 1939 Act and pending immediately before the commencement of this Act shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Section 100 of the 1988 Act. The competent authority held the proposed scheme to have lapsed by operation of Section 100(4) of the 1988 Act which provides that where a proposed scheme is not approved within a period of one year from the date of its publication, the proposal shall be deemed to have lapsed. The matter travelled upto this Court and was disposed of by judgment dated 31st March, 1992 delivered in C.A. Nos. 1198-1201 of 1992 (Ram Krishna Verma & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.3. This case was confined to Saharanpur-Shahdra-Delhi route only. This Court held that in Jeewan Nath Wahal’s case (supra), this Court while dealing with this very scheme had held that the scheme had become final except for the purpose of hearing the 50 operators who had challenged the scheme and the two-Judges Bench which dealt with and decided Shri Chand’s case (supra) was not justified in quashing the proposed scheme bypassing Jeewan Nath Wabal’s case which was a three-Judges Bench decision. This Court further held that the fresh draft scheme under Section 68-C dated 13.2.1986 must therefore be construed to be a draft scheme only in relation to 50 existing operators as per the directions ultimately emerging in Jeewan Nath Wahal’s case. The Court further observed that the 50 operators who were to be heard (regarding Saharanpur-Delhi route) had made a blatant abuse of the process of the court by delaying hearing as directed in Jeewan Nath Wahal’s case and therefore they had forfeited their right of hearing. In exercise of the power conferred by Article 142(1) of the Constitution this Court held that the 50 operators could not be permitted to drag the litigation which should be brought to an end and as the objections preferred by them had outlived their purpose, hearing of their objections was rendered a procedural formality with no tangible result. The Court therefore directed the competent authority

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 815

Cases Referred (3)

Related Judgments

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

KARSANBHAI DAHYABHAI PARMAR VS DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - 2000 Supreme(Guj) 1009