NISAR AHMAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. Application for intervention allowed. Heard counsel for appellants and the respondents.

(2.) The case has chequered history the facts of which have been traced by this court in Ram Krishna Verma v. State of U. P. This court in that judgment held that the draft scheme published on 26/2/1959 and the fresh draft scheme published pursuant to the directions by this Court of 13/2/1986 had not lapsed. The 50 operators to whom this court in Jeewan Nath Wahal case gave the right of hearing, by resorting to the abuse of the process of the court, forfeited their right of hearing and they no more would be entitled to the hearing before the d approving authority. It was also declared in Jeewan Nath Wahal case that this court had already approved the Shaharanpur-Shahdara-Delhi scheme published under Section 68-C except to the extent of hearing the objections of the 50 operators. The hearing being only a procedural formality, the objections filed by the 50 operators outlived their purpose. Accordingly this court gave directions as under:

(3.) The only contention raised by Shri G. Ramaswami, the learned Senior Counsel, is that by operation of Section 100 (3, proviso of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) , the prior approval of the central government relating to the scheme on the inter-State route is mandatory and this court never intended to violate that mandatory requirement in proviso to Ss. (3 of Section 100. It is also contended that if the scheme was not published under sub-section (4 of Section 100 within a period of one year from the date of the publication of the proposed draft scheme under Ss. (4 of Section 100, the draft scheme stood lapsed and this court did not intend to revive the lapsed draft scheme. We find no force in the contentions. As regards prior approval of the central government under proviso to Ss. (3 of Section 100 is concerned the central government had approved the draft scheme dated 26/2/1959 which was upheld not only in Jeewan Nath Wahal case but also in Ram Krishna Verma case. It is not in dispute that the central government had given its prior approval on 9/9/1959 and the scheme was approved, thereafter, by the State government on 29/9/1959. Therefore, as regards the approval of the central government is concerned under Act 4 of 1939, the mandatory requirement was complied with. What is required by the proviso to Ss. (3 of Section 100 is a scheme proposed under the Act. The present one is not a scheme proposed under the Act and that, therefore, the prior approval of the central government under the Act is not necessary. It is also to be seen that Ss. (4 of Section 100 is clearly inapplicable in the facts of this case. The scheme published by the State government on 13/2/1986 was under the Act 4 of 1939. That draft scheme was pursuant to the directions issued by this court, in consequence to the closing of hearing directed by this court in Jeewan Nath Wahal case became final. The hearing was delayed due to dilatory tactics adopted by the operators and as per the directions of this court in Ram Krishna Verma case the draft scheme was approved. In view of that matter and since this court has already approved the draft scheme not only dated 26/2/1959 but also of 13/2/1986, the question of the lapse under Ss. (4 of Section 100 does not arise. The appeals are accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1 lakh.