AJMAL KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions have been connected with each other as common question of law and fact generally arise in these petitions with slight variations. In writ petition No. 212 of 1990, the petitioners, who too, are operators have prayed for issue of writ of prohibition commanding the opposite parties to the petition not to consider any application for grant of stage carriage permit and not to issue permit Saharanpur Ghaziabad route or any route overlapping Saharanpur Shahdara route which is duly notified route under approved scheme. Prayer for certiorari for quashing permit of one Sumat Prasad and others on the route in question too has been made.

(2.) IN Writ Petition No. 7735 of 1989 prayer for issue of writ of prohibition for not considering any application for grant of stage carriage permit or grant the same on the same route has been made. IN writ petition no. 10323 of 1989 prayer for issue of writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 27-9-1989 passed by State Transport Authority taking over the route Muzafarnagar-Gangoli via Butrara-Babri-Keri-Hind Thaha Bhawan-Jalalabad extended from Titro to Garhi Khan and grant of 16 stage carriage permits on the same day. Mandamus has also been prayed for requiring the opposite parties 5 to 18 to the writ petition not to ply their vehicles on the said route on the basis of permits granted by the State Transport Authority, U. P.

(3.) DURING the pendency of consideration of draft scheme which was still pending before the State Government, few persons filed writ petitions before the Supreme Court of India challenging, the proceedings before State Government for approval of scheme. The Supreme Court allowed these writ petitions on 23-8-1985. In re Sri Chand v. Government of U. P., Lucknow, AIR 1986 SC 242, it was held that in view of two judgments of this Court referred to above the approved scheme became final against all except existing fifty operators whose writ petitions were allowed. It was held that it has resulted in discrimination and the situation created by unreasonable delay in approval of the scheme has not merely resulted in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution but also of fundamental right of the other operators guaranteed under Article 19 (I) of the Constitution. Allowing the writ petition the Court quashed the scheme under section 68-C of the old Act published in 1959 and the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof.