K T DHARANENDRAH Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The appellant was an applicant for a temporary permit to ply a stage carriage on the route Chitradurga to Davanagere and back under S. 68(F)(IC) of the Motor Vehicles Act hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. It is not necessary to set out the entire history of this case. When the matter came to the High Court, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the orders passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court and of the Tribunal and remanded the case to the Regional Transport Authority to consider the question whether there was any need for additional services on the route in question. The necessity for applying under S. 68(F)(1C) arose on account of a scheme published under S. 68C of the Act by the State Transport Undertaking of the State of Karnataka in the year 1979 in respect of the said route. When this matter came before us, we called upon the State Transport Undertaking to show cause why the draft scheme should not be quashed on account of the inordinate delay in not publishing the approved scheme under S. 68D of the Act. Admittedly, the scheme has not yet been approved under S. 68D of the Act. No satisfactory explanation has been given by the State Transport Undertaking for not finalising the scheme till now as contemplated by law. We, therefore, following the decision of this Court in Shri Chand v. Govt. of U.P., Lucknow, (1985) 4 SCC 169 : (AIR 1986 SC 242) and Phool Chand Gupta v. Regional Transport Authority, Ujjain, (1985) 4 SCC 190 : (AIR 1986 SC 119) quash the draft-scheme. We, however, make it clear that the State Transport Undertaking or any other person who has obtained permits under S. 68F(1A) or S. 68F(1C) as the case may be. as a consequence of the publication of the draft scheme referred to above may continue to operate their services until the expiry of 31-8-1987 provided they are plying their services today. We, however, reserve liberty to the State Transport Undertaking either to initate a fresh scheme under S. 68C of the Act or to proceed with any other draft scheme which had already been published in respect of the route in question. Since we have quashed the scheme, the question of considering the application under S. 68F(1C) as a consequence of the publication of the draft scheme which is quashed by this order does not arise.

(3.) The appeal is disposed of accordingly.