Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. K. KHANNA, R. A. SHARMA
SANTOSH KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MEERUT - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 21773 Of 1989
Decided On : 03/16/1990
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - PERMITS - GRANT OF PERMITS - PROHIBITION - DRAFT SCHEME FOR NATIONALISATION OF ROUTE - LAPSE OF SCHEME - GRANT OF PERMITS DURING PENDENCY OF DRAFT SCHEME - LEGALITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, existing operators holding regular stage carriage permits on a route, challenged the Regional Transport Authority's (RTA) authority to grant any permit on their route due to a Draft Scheme proposing to nationalize the route under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Old Act).
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Draft Scheme, published in 1986 under the Old Act, lapsed on the date of repeal of the Old Act (1-7-1989) due to the absolute prohibition against continuation of Draft Schemes after one year from their publication, as per the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (New Act).
Issues: 1. Whether the Draft Scheme under the Old Act continues to exist after the repeal of the Old Act. 2. Whether the transport authorities are prohibited from granting any permit under the New Act if a route is covered by a Draft Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Section 217(2)(a) of the New Act, which provides for the continuation of certain notifications, rules, and actions taken under the Old Act, and held that only those things that are not inconsistent with the New Act will continue. The Court found that the Draft Scheme, being inconsistent with the New Act's prohibition against continuation of Draft Schemes beyond one year, lapsed on the date of repeal of the Old Act. 2. The Court examined the provisions of Chapter VI of the New Act, which deals with State Transport Undertakings and nationalization of routes, and found no prohibition against the grant of permits on a route covered by a Draft Scheme. The Court noted that the prohibition against grant of regular permits and their renewal, which existed under the Old Act, was not incorporated into the New Act, and concluded that the omission was deliberate.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the Draft Scheme had lapsed and that there was no prohibition against the grant of permits during the pendency of Draft Schemes under the New Act.
( 1 ) BY these writ petitions the petitioners pray for a writ of mandamus so as to restrain Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as R. T. A.) from granting any permit on their routes. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties in all these cases we have made writ petition No. 21773 of 1989, Santosh Kumar v. Road Transport Authority, as the leading case.
( 2 ) THE routes, Muzaffarnagar-Shamli-Jhinjana-Don-Chausana and Shamli-Chausana extended up to Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as route) are within the jurisdiction of R. T. A. and the petitioners are holding regular stage carriage permit on the route and are existing operators. A proposal (hereinafter referred to as Draft Scheme) under S. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as old Act) was published on 13-2-1986, proposing to nationalise route as well as various other routes. The petitioners claim that during pendency of this Draft Scheme of 1986 no permit can be granted to any person.
( 3 ) OLD Act as originally enacted did not contain any provision for nationalisation of route. It was in 1956 that Chapter IV-A was added by Central Act 100 of 1956 whereby special provisions relating to State Transport Undertaking and nationalisation of routes were introduced in this Act. S. 68-C of this Act authorised State Transport Undertaking to prepare a Draft scheme. If it is of the opinion that for the purposes of providing efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated Road Transport Service, it is necessary in public interest that Road Transport Service in relation to any area or route should be run and operated by State Transport Undertaking whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise. Provision was made for filing objection under S. 68-D and State Government after hearing the objector and State Transport Undertaking was empowered to approve or modify the Scheme. As power to approve includes power not to approve, it has been held that Government can approve, modify or disapprove it. The Scheme, if approved, is required to be published in official gazette by the State Government and thereupon such Scheme becomes final and is called approved Scheme and the area or route, to which it relates, is called notified area or notified route. An approved Scheme can be modified or cancelled under S. 68-E. S. 68-F provided for issue of permit to State Transport Undertaking and for taking consequential action for the purposes of giving effect to the approved Scheme.
( 4 ) UNDER Chapter IV-A of the old Act, there was no provision requiring the State Government to finalise Draft Scheme within some specified period, with the result that Draft Scheme remained pending for several years. Supreme Court in 4, held that inordinate delay in approving Scheme under S. 68-D of the Act prejudices public interest and amounts to abuse of power. Same position was reiterated by Supreme Court in Phool Chand Gupta v. R. T. A. , AIR 1986 SC 119, and Shri Chand Govt. of U. P. , AIR 1986 SC 242. Supreme Court in Onkar Singh v. R. T. A. , AIR 1986 SC 1719, laid down that approval of Draft Scheme cannot be longer than three to five years. In all these cases Draft Schemes were quashed as they have not been approved within a reasonable time.
( 5 ) IN Chapter IV-A or any other section of the old Act there was no provision prohibiting grant or renewal of regular permits, during pendency of Draft Scheme of the route or area. In the absence of any prohibition in old Act Transport Authorities used to grant and renew regular permits during pendency of the Draft Scheme. Delay in disposing of the application for renewal or grant of regular permits on account of pendency of Draft Scheme under S. 68-C was deprecated by the courts. In Samarth Transport Company v. R. T. A. , AIR 1961 SC 93, the Supreme Court observed that transport authorities are expected to discharge their functions fairly and without bias eve
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
