Judgment

SINGH, J.

( 1 ) SPECIAL leave granted.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Raiasthan dated 9-8-1990 dismissing the appellants writ petition made under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the scheme for nationalisation of the route in dispute.

( 3 ) THE appellant holds a Stage Carriage Permit for plying his vehicle on the Kota-Khanpur route, which overlaps a portion ol the Kota-Sangod route. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur issued a Notification on 11-10-1979 proposing a scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act) for the exclusive operation of the vehicles of the State Road Transport Corporation on the Kota-Sangod route. The existing operators as well as the affected operators of the route filed their objections before the hearng authority appointed by the State Government of Rajasthan. The hearing authority after considering those objections approved the scheme under Section 68-D (2) of the old Act by its order dated 30-11-1984 and submitted the papers to the State Government for the issue of Notification under Section 68-D (3 ). Before the State Government could issue Notification under Section 68-D (3) of the old Act, the appellant and other affected operators made representation to the Minister for Transport for affording them a fresh opportunity of hearing, as a result of which no final Notification under Section 68-D (3) could be issued. Meanwhile, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (here in after referred to as the new Act) was enforced with effect from 1-7-1989 and the old Act was repealed. The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of Mandamus restraining the State Government from issuing the final Notification, mainly on the ground that on the enforcement of the new Act, the Notification dated 11-10-1979 issued under Section 68-C of the old Act had lapsed on account of delay in finalisation of the same. A similar writ petition had been filed earlier in respect of Kishangarh-Sarwad route by one Sardar Mohd. on similar grounds. A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed that writ petition holding that the draft scheme under the old Act was saved by the new Act and the same could legally be finalised under the provisions of the new Act. Sardar Mohd. filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge. A Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the Letters Patent Appeal of Sardar Mohd. as well as the various writ petitions including that of the appellant by a common order dated 9-8-1990 impugned in the present appeal.

( 4 ) AFTER the impugned Judgment of the High Court, the State Government approved the scheme as proposed under S. 68-C of the old Act. Final notification approving this scheme was published in the Official Gazette on 29-8-1990 u/ S. 100 (3) of the new Act, as a result of which the Kota-Sangod route has become a notified route, consequently the appellant has no right to ply his vehicle on the overlapping portion of that route.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant urged that since there was undue delay of 11 years in issuing the final Notification, the scheme as proposed u/ S. 68c of the old Act should be deemed to have lapsed and the State Government had no authority or jurisdiction to finalise the same or to issue Notification u/ S. 100 (3) of the new Act. He placed reliance on a number of decisions of this Court in support of his contention that unreasonable delay in finalisinga scheme proposed u/ S. 68c of the old Act rendered the same illegal. He referred to the decisions of this Court in Yogeshwar Jaiswal v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1985 SC 516; Onkar Singh v. Regional Transport Authority, Agra, (1986) 3 SCR 259: (AIR 1986 SC 1719); Devki Nandan v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 Suppl SCC 438; Srichand v. Government of U. P. , (1985) 4 SCC 169: (A