JUDGMENT

VENKATARAMIAH, J. :— These two petitions are filed under Art. 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 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on February 26, 1959 proposing to authorise the State Transport Undertaking of Uttar Pradesh to operate stage carriages on the inter-State route between Saharanpur 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 S. 68D of the Act on September 29, 1959. The validity of the said 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 if necessary into the question whether the scheme should be approved or not. Thereafter in another batch of writ petitions 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 could not operate. The U. P. State Road Transport Corporation however commenced 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 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 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 in question. It is very strange that the Civil Courts have issued such orders of injunction from time to time thus effectively preventing the State Government from disposing of the matter. We are of the view that this is a case in which Civil Courts should not have issued an order of injunction at all since such suits are barred under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Be that it as it may, the situation created by the unreasonable delay in the approval of the scheme has 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) of the Constitution. This Court, in Yogeshwar Jaiswal v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1985 SC 516 has observed at pages 518-519 thus :

"The provisions of S. 68C and S. 68D of the Act clearly indicate that any scheme which is intended 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, 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 geograp