PHOOL CHAND GUPTAversusREGIONAL TRANSPORT ADTHORITY, UJJAIN & ORS.

        682


A
                               PHOOL CBANll GUPTA
                                       v.
                         REGIONAL TRANSPORT ADTHORITY,
                                 UJJAIN & ORS.

                                AUGUST 23, 1985
B
                    [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.]

              Constitution of India 1950, Article 32 and 19(1) (g) -
        Delay in publication of approved scheme under section 68-D of
        Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Whether violate fundamental right.
c             Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, sections 68-<: and 68-D -
        Publication of draft scheme - Approved scheme not published even
        after 20 years - Application for stage carriage permit for route
        covered by the draft scheme kept pending by Regional Transport
        Authority whether valid - Inordinate delay in publication of
        draft scheme - Whether violates fundamental rights.
D            Tbe petitioner applied to the Regional Transport Authority
        for the issuance of a stage carriage permit under the Motor
        Vehicles Act 1939 to operate a stage carriage service on a route
        in the year 1968. Since a draft shceme prepared by the State Hoed
        Transport Corporation under section 68-C of the Act covering the
        said route had been published in the year 1965 proposing to
E
        operate stage carriage services on the route to the exclusion of
        other operators and the said scheme bed not yet been published as
        the approved scheme as required by section 68-D of the Act, his
        application was kept pending by the Regional Transport Authority.

              In the writ petition under Article 32 the petitioner sought
    F
        to quaah the draft scheme of the State Road Transport Corporation
        and to direct the respondent& not to take any further steps
        pursuant to the draft scheme because the approved scheme bad not
        been published even after a lapse of 20 years and this inordinate
        delay . has resulted in the violation of the fnwlamental right
        guaranteed under Article 19(l)(g).
    G
              Allowing the petition,

              lllWl: 1. If there has been unreasonable delay in the
        publication of the approved schellle under section 68-D of the
        Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the scheme is liable to be quas~
    H
        [686 DJ
                        P.C.GUPTA v. TRANSPORT AUTHORITY              683


          2. There is no justification in the circumstances of this          A
     case to keep the proceediags pending any . longer. The fact tbat
)    the Central Government iand the State Govermeut have not given
     their approval/ consent to the scheme cannot be considered as an
     extenuating circumstall<".e. (686 D-E]

          YogeslMar Jaiml etc. v. Stage Tnulaport                Appell•te   B
     Tribunal and an. A.I.R. 1985 s.c. 516 followed.

            3. The draft scheme, that is, scheme No. 72. of 1965
     published under section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and
     all the proceediags which have taken place pursuant thereto till
     now including the order passed by the S!M'.cial Secretary of the        c
     Government of Madhya Pradesh thereon are quashed and the direc-
    . tion issued to the respondents not to take any further proceed-
      ings hereafter puisuant to the 1181d scheme. ( 686 E-F]

           4. The draft scheme which vaa published in the year 1965
     has not yet received the appr'.>val under section 68-D of the Act       D
     and is not published as required bY law. No satisfactory expla-
     nation is alao forthcoming for · this delay. During the period of
     20 years since the publication of the draft scheme there has been
     lot of development in or around the area of routes covered by it.
     Hence it can no longer be said that the proposal in the draft
     scheme would satisfy the requirements of section 68-<: of the Act
     which provides that the transport service which is prepared to be       E
     introduced in respect of any route or area to the exclusion,
     complete or partial, of all other operators should be an effi-
     cient, iidequate, economical and properly coordinated service.
     [685 B, 686 B-C]                                             .

            5. The State Transport Undertaking can take fresh steps for      .F
     publishing a scheme under ·section 68-C of the .<U:t in respect of
     the route or area in question if thought necessary to do so. It
     is not necessary to revive the application allegedly made·. in the
     year 1968 at this distance of time. The petitioner, if advised,
     may. file fresh application which shall be disposed of according
     to law. [686 F-tl, 689 A]      '                                        G

              ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8085 of
    , 1985.

              (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

              R.K. Jain and R.P. Singh for the Petitioner.
                         \


    684              SUPREME COURT REPORTS       [1985) SUPP.2 s.c.R.

          Ravinder Baca and Rame~hwar Nath for the Respondents.
A
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         VENKATARAMIAH, J. This is a petition filed under Article 32
    of the Constitution. The petitioner applied to the Regional
    Transport Authority, Ujjain in the State of Madhya ptadesh for
B   the issuance of a stage carriage permit under the provisions of
    the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
    Act') to. operate a stage carriage service on the route between
    Bhadavmata and Mandsaur in the year 1968. .Since a draft scheme
    prepared by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
    (the State Transport Undertaking) under section 68-C of the Act
    covering the said route had been published as schems No. 72 in
C   the year 1965 proposing to operate stage carriage services on the
    route to the exclusion of other operators and the said scheme
    had not yet been published as the approved scheme as required by
    section 68-'D of the Act his application was kept pending by the
    Regional Transport Authority, Ujjain Region, Ujjain by its order
    dated January 20, 1977. Because the approved scheme has not been
D   published till today even after the lapse of 20 years from the
    date of its publication under section 68-c of the Act the
    petitioner has filed this petition requesting the court to qussh
    the draft scheme No. 72 of 196~ and to direct the State Govern-
    ment, the State Transport Undertaking and the Transport Autho-
    rities not to take any further steps pursuant to the said draft
    scheme.
E
          When the above petition came up for preliminary hearing on
    July 29, 1985 a notice was issued to the State Goveriunent of
    Madhya Pradesh to show cause why the draft, scheme and all
    proceedings consequent upon its publication should not be quash-
    ed. In reply to the said notice a counter affidavit hes been
F   filed, the deponent of which is B.M. Saxena, Traffic Superinten-
    dent, Madhya ptadesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal. In
    the counter affidavit it is stated that the draft scheme, that
    is, Scheme No.72 was published under section 68-c of the Act on
    December 31, 1965. The objections and representations filed in
    respect of the said scheme were heard by the Special Secretary
G   appointed by the State Government to hear the objections and that
    the objections and representations were disposed of by him by his
    order dated May 16, 1967. T'nereafter, the entire proceedings were
    placed before the State Government for its approval and publi-
    cations under sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 68-D of the
    Act. It would appear that the scheme in question involved certain
       P.C.GUPTA v. TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [VENKATARAMIAH, J.]      685


inter-State routes and that it had to be approved by the Central
Government as required by the proviso to sub-section (3) of
section 68-D of the Act and also assented to by the State Govern-
ment of Rajasthan. The State Government had not been able to
obtain till now the requisite approval/ consent of the Central
Government or the State Government of Rajasthan and thus it has
not been possible to publish the approved scheme.                      B


      From the foregoing it is clear that the draft scheme which
was published in the year 1965 has not yet received the approval
under section 68-D of the Act and published as required by law.
No satisfactory explanation is also forthcoming for this delay.
The petitioner contends that this inordinate delay has resulted        c
in the violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. In support of his conten-
tion, the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in
Yogeshwar Jaiswal etc. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal &
Ors. A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 516. In that decision this Court has
observed at pages 518-519 thus:

           "The provisions of section 68C and 68D of the Act
           clearly indicate· that any scheme which is intended for
           providing efficient, adequate, ·economical or properly
           co-ordinated transport service should be approved
           either as it is or in a IIH)dified form or rejected, as     E
           the case may be, within a reasonably short time as any
           extraordinary   delay is bound to upset all or any of
           the factors, namely, efficiency, adequacy, economy or
           co-ordination which ought to govern an approved scheme
           under Chapter IVA of the Act. On account of var1~1s
           reasons such as the growth of population and the
           development of the geographical area adjacent to the        F
          area or route in question, any unreasonable delay may
           render the very proposal contained in the scheme anti-
          quated, outmoded and purposeless. Hence there is need
          for speedy disposal of .the case under section 68D of
          the Act . .•.•.•..............•.•...... • ............•.••
          Delay in performance of statutory duties amounts to an       G
          abuse of process of .law and has to be remedied by the
          court particularly when the public interest suffers
          thereby. Hence if there is an unreasonably long and
          un-explained delay in the State Government passing
          orders under section 68D of the Act, the· Court may
          issue a mandamus to the State Government to dispose of
                                                                       H
        686              SUPREME COURT REPORTS       [1985] SUPP;2 s.c.R.


A                 the case under section 68D of the Act within a speci-
                  fied time or may in an appropriate case even issue a
                  writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the scheme
                  and a writ in the nature of prohibition under section
                  68C of the Act because section 68D does not confer an
                  unfettered discretion on the State Government to deal
B                 with the case as it likes. The power under section 68D
                  has to be exercised having due regard to the public
                   interest."

            It is not denied that during tbe period of 20 years since
        the publication of the draft scheme. there has been lot of
        development in or around the area or routes covered by it. Hence
c       it can no longer be said that the proposal in the draft scheme
        would satisfy the requirements of section 68-C of the Act which
        provides that the transport service which i.s proposed to be
        introduced in respect of any route or area to the exclusion, com-
        plete or partial, of all other operators should be efficient,
        adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated service. This
D       Court has given substantial reasons in Yogeshllar Jaiswal's case
        (supra) for quashing a scheme published under section 68-D of the
        Act if there has 'been unreasonable delay in the publication of
        the approved scheme under section 68-D of the Act. We do not find
        that there is any justification in the circumstances of this case .
        to keep the proceedings pending any longer. The fact that the
        Central Government and the State Government of Rajasthan have not
E       given their approval/ consent to the scheme cannot be conddered
        as an extenuating circumstance.

             We, therefore, quash the draft scheme, that is, scheme No.
        72 of 1965 published under section 68-C of the Act and all the
        proceedings which have taken place pursuant thereto till now
F       including the order passed by the Special Secretary of the
        Government of Madhya Pradesh thereon and we issue a direction to
        the respondents not to take any further proceedings hereafter
        pursuant to scheme No. 72 of 1965.

             This order does not prevent the State Transport Undertaking
G       of the State of Madhya Pradesh from taking fresh steps for
        publishing a scheme under section 68-C if it thinks that it is
        necessary to do so. As regards the appllcation said to have been
        made by the petitioner in the year 1968, we feel that it is not
        necessary to revive it at this distance of time. The petitioner
        may if he is· so advised file a fresh application for a permit and
    H
         P.C.GUl'l'A v. TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [VENKATARAMIAll, J.]   687


if he makes such an application it shall be disposed of in accor-        A
dance with law after inviting objectiona and representations to
it from the concerned parties.

     This petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no             B
order as to costs.




A.P.J.                                              Petition allowed.