PRASHANT JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Gopal Narain, Advocate alongwith Sri, B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioners, Sri. Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand as well as Sri. V. Bahuguna, Advocate for the intervener.

(2.) ALL these writ petitions raise a common question of law and are hence being decided by a common judgment. In all these petitions an order dated 13 -1 -2009 passed by the Secretary, Transport Department, State of Uttarakhand has been challenged, which has been passed under Section 68 (3)(ca) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by which the State Government has formulated a motor route. The main ground for challenge in these writ petitions is that Section 68(3)(ca) which was inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by way of an amendment, known as Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act No. 54 of 1994), stood repealed in the year 2001 by the Repealing and Amending Act, 2001 (Act No. 30 of 2001). Hence, since these provisions i.e. clause (ca) to Section 68 (3) are no more in existence, powers under these provisions could not have been exercised.

(3.) THEREAFTER , by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 various Sections in the parent Act were amended and as far as Section 68 is concerned, (3)(ca) was added to Section 68 by Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment Act), 1994. Section 22 of Amendment Act, 1994 reads as follows : "22. Amendment of Section 68. - In Section 68 of the Principal Act, in sub -section (3), after clause (c), the following clause shall be inserted, namely : - "(ca) Government to formulate routes for plying stage carriages;"."