SHYAM NARAYAN JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this application is to quash Annexure 1, a scheme issued under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act which relates to the route Dumka to Deoghar. This scheme has not been approved as yet by the Government. As a result of pendency of the scheme, request made by the petitioner to grant permit for the aforesaid route was refused by virtus of Section 68-F of the Act. Learned counsel says that the scheme is now about seven years old, but still the same has not been approved. He, therefore, on the strength of the decision in the case of K. T. Dharanendrah v. THE Regional Transport Authority and others, AIR 1987 SC 1324 says that the same should be quashed. THE decision given by the Supreme Court fully applies to the facts of this case. But Mr. Chaudhary says that the petitioner realy wants a declaratory relief which cannot be given in a case under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is not correct, firstly it is not a merely declaratory relief that the petitioner asks for because he had applied for a permit and the same has been refused on account of Section 68-F of the Act. THEn again Section 68-F of the Act stares at faces, every one who wants to apply for permanent permit on the route in question. THE relief, therefore, is such that if granted it will entitle person, to make an application for grant of permanent permit. THE second objection made by Mr. Chaudhary is that really Annexure 1, the scheme, published under Section 68-C of the Act is a superfluous one. He has said that in paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit. According to learned counsel, the scheme is superfluous on account of Annexure 'A' and Annexure 'B' to the counter-affidavit, if that is so, then it is all the more necessary, to quash superfluous scheme, which has been pending for about 7 years We, however, do not say anything as to whether on account of Annexures 'A' and 'B', the petitioner or anyone will be entitled to permit for the route in question. That, of course, will have to be decided in accordance with law. THE writ application is therefore, allowed in the manner indicated above and Annexure 1 is quashed. Writ application allowed.