ONKAR SINGH Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are carrying on the business of running stage carriages in the State of Uttar Pradesh. They had obtained temporary permits under S. 68-F(1-C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the route Somna-Naujheel. They could not obtain permits under Chapter IV of the Act to operate on the said route since a scheme published under S. 68-C of the Act in the year 1960 was in force. It would appear that the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') applied for fifteen temporary permits for operating its stage carriages on the route in question and obtained them from the Regional Transport Authority, Agra under S. 68-F(1-A) of the Act as per its order dated 31-1-1984. But the Corporation introduced only five services against fifteen permits. Thus there were ten vacancies. The Regional Transport Authority granted ten temporary permits to ten private operators in those ten vacancies,. One Davender Pal Singh who was holding a nontemporary permit issued under Chapter IV of -the Act filed a revision petition under S. 64-A of the Act before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The petition was dismissed. On account of the pressure of traffic the number of temporary permits was increased to thirty four. The Corporation was- granted these additional permits. But it failed to operate its services under all the permits issued to it. The private operators who wanted to operate the vehicles were not granted temporary permits. The appellants were asked to stop plying their vehicles under the temporary permits obtained by them. Aggrieved by the stoppage of the running of their vehicles, they filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 1613 of 1985 contending that once temporary permits were issued under S. 68-F(1-C) of the Act they would remain in force until the draft scheme published under S. 68-C was approved under S. 68-D of the Act. The High Court being of the opinion that on permits being issued to the State Transport Undertaking, i.e. the Corporation in this case, the temporary permits issued to other private operators under S. 68F(1-C) of the Act came to an end, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the judgment in the writ petition, the appellants have lited this appeal by special leave. When this petition came up for admission on April 1, 1986 before this Court it was urged by the appellants that the draft scheme published under S. 68-C of the Act having become stale was liable to be quashed in view of some of the recent decisions rendered by this Court. on the basis of the above submission notices were issued to the State Government and the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation - the respondents herein to show cause why the draft scheme should not be quashed. The counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation opposing the prayer made in this appeal.

(2.) The draft scheme admittedly was published under S. 68-C of the Act on June 25, 1960 more than 25 years ago and it has not yet been approved. It is still in the stage of a draft scheme. We have been taken through the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation setting out the several steps taken in the proceedings before the Hearing Authority under S. 68-D of the Act. On going through the counter-affidavit we are not convinced that sufficient grounds have been made out for sustaining the draft scheme at this distance of time. It is seen that there is tremendous pressure for the grant of pemits to ply stage carriages on the route. Yet the State Transport Undertaking which is expected to provide adequate, efficient, economic and co-ordinated service has failed to do so even after twenty five years have elapsed. It may be that some operators had adopted delaying tactics. But the Hearing Authority under S. 68-D of the Act should have taken necessary steps to conclude the proceedings early. The delay of nearly a quarter of a century is inexcusable. The draft scheme has virtually become out-moded. We find that there has been clear disobedience of the provisions of the Act. The proviso to S. 68-F(1-D) of the Act which provides that where -the period of operation of a permit in relation to any area, route, or portion thereof specified in a scheme published under S. 68-C of the Act expires after such. publication, such permit may be renewed for a limited period but the permit so renewed shall cease to be effective on the publication of the scheme under sub-sec. (3) of S. 68-D of the Act indicates the legislative intention regarding the maximum period that may be spent on the proceedings which intervene between the date of publication of the draft scheme under S. 68-C of the Act and the publication of the approved or modified scheme under S. 68-D(3) of the Act. It suggests that it cannot be longer than three to five years which is usually the period during which a permit can be in force without renewal as provided in S. 58 of the Act. It could never have been in the contemplation of Parliament that the period for approving a scheme with or without modification or for rejecting it could be twenty-five years as in this case. The undesirable effects of the inordinate delay in completing the proceedings under S. 68-D of the Act are many. Two of them are:

(3.) The period of such uncertainty should not be allowed to continue any longer in the instant case.