RADHA KRISHNA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition learned standing counsel has accepted notice for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent No. 4 U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) is represented by Shri Rajiv Sharma. The writ petition was filed on 20-1-1997. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for respondents Nos. 1 to 3, was granted time to file counter affidavit by the next date of listing. The writ petition was directed to be listed on 31-1-1997. By order dated 4-3-1997 the case was directed to be listed showing the name of Shri Rajiv Sharma as counsel for respondent No. 4 and respondents were directed to file counter affidavit. The case was thereafter listed on various dates but counter affidavit has not been filed by the respondents. As sufficient time has already been granted to file counter affidavit, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits for deciding the writ petition finally at this stage against which the learned counsel for the respondents have no objection.

(2.) The facts necessary for appreciating the controversy are that in 1971 a scheme was proposed under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by the State Government for introducing the operation of the vehicles of the Corporation in exclusion of others. Objections were filed. However, the Scheme was finalised and pushed on 24-8-1995. This gave rise to a series of litigation and the dispute went upto the Apex Court where by an interim order status quo was directed to be maintained by the Supreme Court. During this period, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the act) came into force. It is stated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that Hon'ble Supreme Court on 7-2-1994 left the matter to be decided by the authorities under the provisions of the new Act. It is stated that in view of the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State Government, in exercise of powers under Section 102 of the Act, proposed a modification of the Scheme, the English translation of which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Its close reading will show that the notification has been pushed under clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution. It has been published in exercise of powers under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 102 of the Act. The Second paragraph of the Notification is relevant for deciding the controversy in hand, hence it is being reproduced below :

(3.) From a perusal of the Schedule it appears that by the proposed modification the existing operators holding permit numbers mentioned therein were also to be included along with the Corporation to operate business in the routes mentioned in column 2. After the aforesaid notifications, objections were filed by the Corporation and other interested persons. After hearing them, the hearing authority passed order dated 15-3-1996, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. The hearing authority approved the modification of the Scheme. However, in operative part of the order, the hearing authority while rejecting the objections of the Corporation and other persons and taking a view that the modifications are in the public interest, also directed the publication of the modified Scheme under Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1949. It is stated by the petitioner that he made applications on1 19-4-1996, 20-11-1996 and 4-12-1996 for publication of the modified scheme. However, no steps have been taken either for publication of the modified scheme or for its implementation.