Supreme Court of India
YOGESHWAR JAISWAL, ETC, ETC.versusSTATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1985 INSC 16
- Decided
- 31 January 1985
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- E S VENKATARAMIAH
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the temporary permits granted under section 68F(1C) are valid and cannot be set aside, and the State Government must decide on the scheme under section 68D within the stipulated time, failing which the scheme under 68C will be quashed.
Summary
The appellants were granted temporary stage‑carriage permits on 10 January 1980 under section 68F(1C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, nine years after a scheme had been published under section 68C. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the Allahabad High Court set aside those permits, holding that they were dependent on a prior resolution to which the appellants were not parties. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal and High Court erred by ignoring the public‑interest necessity for the permits and the unreasonable delay by the State Government in acting under section 68D. It restored the temporary permits and directed the State Government to decide on the scheme by 31 July 1985, otherwise the scheme published under 68C would be quashed. The appeals were allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether temporary permits issued under section 68F(1C) after a long delay are valid notwithstanding the Tribunal and High Court's cancellation.
- Whether the State Government's failure to act under section 68D within a reasonable time amounts to an abuse of process warranting judicial intervention.
- Whether the Tribunal and High Court erred by not considering the public‑interest implications of cancelling the temporary permits.
- Whether the scheme published under section 68C should be quashed if the State Government does not approve or modify it by the prescribed deadline.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 58, s. 62, s. 68C, s. 68D, s. 68F
Subjects
temporary permitmotor vehicles actpublic intereststatutory dutydelayabuse of processmandamusscheme approvalsection 68Csection 68Dsection 68F
Judgment
790
A
YOGESHW AR JAISW AL, ETC, ETC.
B v.
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.
January 31, 1985
[E.S. VENICATARAMIAH AND SABYASACHI MUICHARJI, JJ.)
Motor Vehicles Act 1939 Sections 68C, 680 and 68F:
Stage ca"fages of State Transport Undertaking-Exclusive operation of-
Dra/t scheme published-No decision taken thereon by State Government for
0 nine ve4rs-lncrecued transport facllitles-Need and necessity arising-Regional
Transport Undertaking granting temporary permits-Action whether valid and
fetal-Statutory duty Imposed by section 68C-Speedy exercise with due regard
to public interest-N~ees1lty of. ·
Admlnistratl1e Law :
Statutory duty-Delay in perforn1ance of-Abuse of process of law-To
be remedied by Court.
Practice and Proudure :
F Motor Vehicle Permits-Grant of-Delay ;n-Performance of statutOry
dufJ..-duty af Court to enforce by issuance of writ.
A notification dated November 17, 1971 was published under section
68C of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, inviting objections to a draft
scheme providing for exclusive operation of stage carriages of the State
G Transport Undertaking over thirteen routes in a district. A~ the Regional
Transport Authority felt that it was necessary to increase the strength of
the stage carriage services of nine routes out of the thirteen routes covered
by the said scheme, it decided by its order dated December 17, 1979 to
invite applications for temporary carriage permits. This decision was taken
after it bad allowed amalgamation and extension of certain existing permits
he1d by 102 operators. Pursuant to this invitation by the Regional
Transport Authority, a large number of persons including the appellants
applied for the temporary permits. On January 10, 1980, the State trans-
!'ort 11ndertaking having not made any ap!'lications uqder section 68F(I A)
YOGBSHWAlt JAISWAL V. S.T.A. TdBUNAL 191·
the application of the appellants and a large number of other persons about 800
were considered by the Regional Transport Authority and the appellants were
granted nineteen temporary permits. ·
Some Operators who felt aggrieved by the resolutions of the RegiortB.l
Transport Authority passed on December 17, 1979 and January 10, 1980 filed
Revision Petitions before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
B
. ' , The Tribunal by its order dated June 3, 1981 set aside both the resolutions
dated December 17, 1979 and January 13, 1980 of the Regional Transport Autho-
rity, on the ground that the amalgamation and extension of permits granted in
favour of the existing operators, after the pubUcation of the scbem~ under section
68C was contrary to the provisions of Chapter IVA of the Act.
The appeUants filed writ petitions which were dismissed by the High Court, c
which held that since the grant of temporary permits in favour of the clppellants
was dependent upon the order dated December 17, 1979 to which the appellants
were not parties, the temporary permits granted in their favour on January 10,
1980 were also liable to be set aside.
Allowing the Appeals to this Court,
D
HELD : 1. The order of the Tribunal and the order of the High Court to
the extent they cancel the temporary permits in favour of the appellants are set
aside. The appellants are permitted to operate their services under the tempo-
rary permits issued to them under section 68F (tC) on January 10, 198J and the
operation of the said temporary permi~s shall come to an end in accordance with
law. [799E] E
2. A direction is issued to the State Government to pass orders under
section 68D (2) approving the scheme with or without any modification or rejec-
ting it or to pass any other order thereon which it may under that provision on
or before July 31, 1985. Such approved scheme shall be published under section
68D (3) on or before August 31, 1985. Failure to do so, the scheme published
under section 68C shall stand quashed with effect from August 31, 1985. [799C·D]
F
3. (i) Both the Tribunal and the High Court overlooked the relevant
issues affecting the public interest which should always be the guiding principle
in deciding cases relating to grant of motor vehicles permits under the Act. [7988]
(ii) The Tribunal and the High Court both failed to notice that the scheme
had been published in the year 1971 and the order issuing temporary permits had
been passed nearly nine years after its publication, after·the Regional Transport G
Authoritr was satisfied that there was necessity for granting them. [798C]
(iil) The Tribuna1 and the High Court did not seek to elicit information
about the reasons for the inordinate delay in the State Government passing its
order under .section 68D of the Act and failed to consider the adverse effect. on
the travelling public. [798D] H
!1985] 2 s.c.ll..
4. ·The Regional Transport Anthority bad found that there was need for
f~ftg t11e said temporary petmits for some of the routes in question, after it
bad granted extension to the permits held by 102 existing operators. On the
cancellation of the said extensions, the need for providing additional travelling
facilities became further intensified and therefore there was certainly no case for
~ting aside the temporary permits granted in favour of the appellants. The
cancellation of the temporary permits issued in favour of the appellants has
resulted in grave public prejudice. [798G·H]
S. Delay iri performance of statutory duties amounts to an abuse of
process of law and has to be remedied by the court particularly when the public
interest 1uffen thereby. [796F]
6. Ci) The provisions of section 68C and section 68D of the Motor Vehi·
c cles Act 1939 clearly indicate that any scheme which is intended for providing
efficient, adequate, economical or properJy by coordinated transport service should
be approved either as it is or in a modified form or rejected, as tlle 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 of coordination
which ought to govern an approved scheme under Chapter JV A of the Act. [794G·Hl
D (ii) On account of various reasons such as the gtowth of population and
the development of the geographical ar~a adjacent to the area or route in
question, any unreasonable delay may render the very Proposal contained in
the scheme antiquated, outmoded and purposeless. Hence there is need for
speedy disposal oftbe case under section 68D of the Act. [795A-B]
(iii) The power under section 680 bas to be exercised having due regard
to the public interest. [796H]
E
(iv) If there is an unreasonably long and unexplained delay in the State
Government passing orders under section 680 of the Act, the Court may issue a
mandamus to the State Government to di~pose of the case under section 68D
of the Act within a specified time or may in an appropriate case even issue a
writ in the n'ature of certiorari quashing the scheme and a writ in the nature of
prohibition directing the State Government not to proceed with the consideration
F
Of the scheme published under section 68C of the Act because section 680 does
not confer an unfettered discretion on the State Government to deal with the
case as it likes. [796F-G]
1. Snb.eections (IA) and IC of section 68F of the Act read together
indicate that what can be granted under either of the said sub·sec~ions is only a
temporary permit which can last during the period between the date of publi-
cation of the scheme under section 68C of the Act and the date on which the
G order under section 680 of the Act is m3.de subject to the provisions contained
in sub-section (lB) of section 68F of the Act. The life of such temporary permit
cannot extend to an unreasonably long period, as even a renewable permit issued
under Chapter JV of the Act is subject to the restrictions contained in section
58 of the Act as regards its duration and renewal and that a temporary permit
issued under section 62 of the Act cannot be in force in any case for .more than
four months. The State Government is necessarily therefore required by law
to pass its orders under section 680 of the Act as early as possible. {796C·El
II
YoGBSuwAk 1AISWAL v. S.T.A. T.RIBUNAL (Venkataramiah, J.) 793
.,.,l CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 53, 54-57, A
202-04 and 255 of 1982.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27th November, 1981 of
Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petitions Nos.
2915, 2888 2914, and 2974 of 1981.
B
J.P. Goyal, S. N. Kacker, Shanti Bhushan, V. K. Verma, V. J.
Francis, Mahabir Singh and N. S. Malik for the appearing Appel-
lants.
V. M. Tarkunde, K. K. Venugopa/, Prilhviraj, B. S.
Chauhan, Rani Chhabra, R. K. Jain, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit and Raju
c
Rarnachandran for the appearing Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
'
VENKATARAMIAH, J. The lamentable delay of nearly fourteen
years involved in the State Government of Uttar Pradesh passing its
order under section 680 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (herein-
after referred to as 'the Act') on a scheme published under section
68C thereof has been the main cause of these appeals by special
leave filed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad
dated November 27, 1981. E
A notification dated November 17, 1971 was published under
section 68C of the Act by the State transport undertaking of ·the
State of Uttar Pradesh in the U. P. Gazette dated November 27,
1971 inviting objections to a draft scheme providing for the exclu-
sive operation of its own stage carriages over thirteen routes within
F
the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority of Meerut. · It
is unfortunate that no decision has yet been taken by the State
Government under section 68D of the Act for one reason or the
other. In the meanwhile the members of the public as well as the
motor operators have become subject to several constraints arising
from the publication of such a scheme.
G
Chapter IVA of the Act was introduced by Act 100 of 1956
into the Act with the object of making provision for operation of
motor vehicles to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons
for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and
properly co-ordinated transport service to the community. The
provisions contained in Chapter IVA of the Act and the Rules made tt
794 SUl'Rmll! COURT REPORTS [1985] i s.c.1.t.
A thereunder are declared as having overriding effect on the provisions
in Chapter IV of the Act which contains provisions relating to
control of transport vehicles and all other laws. Section 68C of
the Act provides that where any State transport undertaking is of
opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate,
B
economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service, it is
necessary in the public interest that road transport services in general
or in any particular class of such service in relation to any area or
route or portion thereof should be run and operated by the· State
transport undertaking, whether to the exdusion, complete or partial,
of other persons or otherwise, the State transport undertaking may
c prepare a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the services
proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered
and &uch other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed,
and shall cause every such scheme to be published in the Official
Gazette and also in such other manner as the State Government may
· direct. On the publication of the scheme, any person already pro-
D viding transport facilities by any meons along or near the area or
route proposed to be covered by the scheme, any association repre-
senting persons interested in the provision of road transport facilities
recognised in this behalf by the State Government and any local
authority or police authority within \Vhose jurisdiction any part of the
area or route proposed to be covered by the scheme lies may, within )(
thirty days from the date of the Publication of the scheme in the official
E Gazette, file objections to it before the State Government. The State
Government may after considering the objections and after giving an
opportunity to the objector or his representatives and the represen-
tatives of the State transport undertaking to be heard in the matter if
they so desire, approve or modify the scheme. This is the substance
F of sub-sections (I) and (2) of section 68D of the Act. Under sub-
section ; 3) thereof the scheme approved or modified has to be
published in the official Gazette and such scheme is called the
approved scheme and the area or route to which it relates is called
the notified area or notified route. The.provisions of section 68C and
section 68D of the Act clearly indicate that any scheme which is
G intended for providing efficient, adequate, economical or properly
co-ordinated transport service should be approved either as it is or
in a modified form or rejected, as the case may be, within a reason-
ably short time as any extraordinary delay is bound to upset all or
any of the factors, namely, efficiency, adequacy, economy or co- y
ordination which ought to govern an approved scheme under Chapter
IVA of the Act. On account of various reasons such as the growth
YOGEsHWAR JAISWAL v. s.t.A. TRIBUNAL (Venkiltaramiah, J.) 195
of population and the development of the geographical area adjacent A
to the area or route in question, any unreasonable delay may render
the very proposal contained in the scheme antiquated, outmoded
and purposeless. Hence there is need for speedy disposal of the case
under section 68D of the Act.
B
Tho other legal constraints flowing from the publication of
the scheme under section 68C of the Act also lead us to the same
conclusion. Section 68F (ID) of the Act provides that save as other-
wise provided in sub-section (IA), or sub-section (IC) thereof no
permit shall be granted or renewed during the period intervening
between tho date of publication under section 68C of any scheme c
and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme, in
favour of any person for any dass of road transport service in
relation to an area or rouMo or portion thereof covered by such
scheme The proviso to sub·section (1 D) of section 68F of the Act,
however, states that where the period of operation of a permit in
relation to any area, route or portion thereof specified in a scheme
published under section 68C expires after such publication, such D
permit shall be renewed for a limited period, but the pormit so
renewed shall cease to be effective on the publication of the scheme
under sub-section (3) of section 68D of the Act. This provision
overrides the provisions in section 58 of the Act which provides for
the renewal of motor vehicle permits issued under Chapter IV of the
E
Act. As regards the issue of fresh permits for operating motor
vehicles of the class referred to in the scheme in the area or on the
route in question between the date of publication of the scheme
under section 68C of the Act and the date of publication of the
approved or modified scheme under section 68D of the Act, sub-
sections (IA) and (IC> of section 63F of the Act alone have to be F
resorted to. Sub-section (1 A) of section 6'ff gives preference to the
• .Y
State transport undertaking regarding the issue of such permits. It
provides that where any scheme has been published by a State
.transport undertakmg under section '8 C, thAt undertaking may
apply for a temporary permit, in respect of any area or route oi:
' ( portion thereof specified in the said scheme, for the period inter- G
vening between the date of publication of the scheme and the date
of publication of the approved or modified scheme, and where such
application is made, the State Transport Authority or the Regional
Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall, if it is satisfied that
it is necessary to increase, in the public interest the number of
vehicles operating in such area or route or portion thereof, issue
the temporary permit prayed for by the State transport undertaking
196 SUPRE!.iE COURT REPoR'ts '!1985] 2 s.c.R..
A Such temporary permit shall be effective if the scheme is published
under sub-section (3) of section 68D of the Act until the grant of the
permit to the State transport undertaking under sub-section (!) of
section 68F of the Act or if the scheme is not published accordingly,
until the expiration of one week from the date on which the order
under sub-section (2) of section 68D of the Act is made. If no
B application for the temporary permit is. made under sub->ection (IA)
of section 68F of the Act by the State transport undertaking, the
Sta.le Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as
the case may be, may under sub-section OC) of section 68F of the
Act grant, subject to such conditions as it may think fit, temporary
permit to any person in respect of the area or route or portion there-
c of specified in the scheme and the permit so granted shall cease to
be effective on the ISsue of a permit to the State transport
undertaking in respect of that area or route or portion there-
of. Sub-sections ( IA ) and ( JC ) of section 68 F of the
.Act re1d together indicate that what can be granted under either of
D the said sub-sections is only a temporary permit which can last during
the period between the date of publication of the scheme under
section 68C of the Act and the date on which the order under section
68D of the Act is made subject to the provisions contained in sub·
section (lB) of section 68F of.the Act. The life of such temporary
permit cannot· extend to an unreasonably long period, as even a
E renewable permit issued under Chapter IV of the Act is subject to
the restrictions contained in section 58 of the Act as regards its
duration aild renewal and thata temporary permit issued under
section 62 of the Act cannot be in force in any case for more than
four months. Necessarily, therefore, the State Government is
required by law to pas9 its orders under sectio · 680 of the Act as
F early as possible. Delay in performance of statutory duties amounts
to an abuse of process of law and has to be remedied by the court
particularly when the public inter~st suffers, thereby. Hence if there
is an unreasonably long and unexplained delay in the State Goveren·
ment passing orders under section 68D of the Act, the Court may
issue a mandamus to the State Government to dispose of the case
G under seciton 68D of the Act within a specific time or may in an
appropriate case even issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quash·
ing the scheme and a writ in the nature prohibition directing the
State Government not to proceed with the consideration of the
scheme published under section 68C of the Act because section 68b
does not confer an unfettered discretion on the State Government
to deal with the case as it likes. The power under section 68D has to
ll be exercised having due regard to the public interest.
YOGESHWAR JAlsWAL v. S.T.A. TRIBUNAL (Venkataramlah, J.) 797
Jn the cases before us the appellants are aggrieved by the A
quashing of the temporary permits which had been issued on January
10, 1980 under section 68F (!Cl of the Act by the Regional Trans-
port Authority, Meerut in their favour to operate stage carriages on
some of the routes covered by the scheme nearly nine years after
its publication. It appears that the Regional Transport Authority felt
that it was necessary to increase the strength of the stage carriage B
services on nine routes out of the thirteen routes covered by the
scheme and accordingly it decided by its order dated December 17,
1979 to invite applications for temporary carriage permits. This
decision was taken by the Regional Transport Authority after it had
allowed the amalgamation and extension of certain existing permits
held by 102 operators Pursuant to the invitation by the Regional
c
Transport Authority, a large number of persons including the
appellants applied for the temporary permits before the last date
specified for making such applications i. e. December 31, 1979. On
January 10, 1980, the U. P. State Transport Undertaking having not_
made any application under section 68F OA) of the Act, the
applications of the appellants and a large number of other persons
who were about 800 in number were considered by the Regional
Transport Authority and the appellants were i;ranted in all nineteen
temporary permits. Some persons who felt aggrieved by the resolu-
tions of the Regional Transport Authority passed on December 17.
1979 and January IO, 1980 filed revision petitions before the State E
Transport Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow. The Tribunal by its order
dated June 3, 1981 set aside both the resolutions dated December
17, 1979 and January IO, 1980 passed by the Regional Transport
Authority. The main ground for setting aside the resolution dated
December 17, 1979 was that the amalgamation and extension of
permits granted in favour of the existing operators after the pnblica- F
tion of the scheme under section 68C of the Act was contrary to
the provisions of Chapter IVA of the Act. The Tribnnal, however,
did not hold that there was no necessity for increasing the number
of stage carriage services on the routes in question and for issuing -
temporary permits under section 68F of the Act. Thereafter the
• I
appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution questioning the correctness of the order G
setting aside the temporary permits granted in their favour on
January lO: 1980. The existing operators who had been granted
amalga~t1on and extension of their permits by the Regional
Authority on December 17, 1979, however, did not challenge the
order of the Tribunal even though the orders passed in their favour
were also set aside. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed
ll
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS !1985j 2 S.C.R
A by the appellants holding that since the grant of temporary permits
in favour of the appellants was dependent upon the order dated
December 17, 1979 to which the appellants were not parties, the
temporary permits gianted in their favour on January IO, 1980 were
also liable to be set aside. These appeals by special leave are filed
against the judgment of the High Court in the above writ petitions.
B
On the facts and in the circumstances of these appeals, we are
constrained to observe that both the Tribunal and the High Court
overlooked the relevant' issues affecting the public interest which
should always be the guiding principle in· deciding cases relating to
the grant of motor vehicles permits under the Act. The Tribunal and
c the High Court have both failed to notice that the scheme had been
published in the year 1'71 and the order issuing temporary permits
had been passed nearly nine years after its publication, after the
Regional Transport Authority was satisfied that there was necessity
•
.
for granting them. The Tribunal and the High Court did not seek to
elicit information about the reasons for the inordinate delay in the
D
State Government passing its order· under section 68D of the Act
and failed to consider the adverse effect on the travelling public. The
Tribunal and the High Court took a highly technical view in dispo-
sing of the matter. We are of the view that it is needless at this stage
to go into the grounds in detail on which the Tribunal and the High
Court found that the orders of the Regional Transport Authority
E
were untenable since nearly fourteen years have elapsed form the
date of publication of the scheme. The High Court appears to have
given more attention to the validity of the grant of extensions to the
existing operators on December 17, 1979 which was not at all in
issue before it than to the correctness of the order of the Tribunal
F in setting aside the temporary permits granted to the appellants on
January ! 0, 1980 which had been challenged by the appellants in the
writ petitions. Admittedly the region In which the routes in respect
of which the scheme is published are lying is a thickly populated
part of the State of Uttar Pradesh. There has been a lot of develop-
ment in the region in recent years on the agricultural front as well as
the commercial front. The Regional Transport Authority had found
G thatthere was need for issuing the said temporary permits for some of
the routes in question after it had granteci extensions to the permits held
by 102 existing operators. On the c1ncellation.of the said extensions
the need for providing additional travelling facilities become further
intensified and therefore there was certainly no case for setting aside
the temporary permits granted in favour of the appellants The can-
H cellation of the temporary permits issued in favour of the appellants
YOGP.'l!!WAll JAISWAL v. S.T.A. TRIBUNAL (Venkatarantiah, J.) 799
has resulted in grave public prejudice. We are also of the opinion A
that the extra-ordinary delay in the disposal of the proceedings be-
fore the State Government under section 68D of the Act has brought
about a stalemate which should be terminated quickly in the
interests of the general public.
We, therefore, consider that in the interests of justice it is B
appropriate to bring to an end the proceedings under section 68D of
the Act expeditiously. We would have perhaps consider.edthe question
of quashing the scheme itself atthis stage but since no such contention
is urged before us, we feel that it is sufficient to issue a direction to
the State Government to pass orders under section 68D (2) of the
Act approving the scheme with or without any modification or c
rejecting it or to pass any other order thereon which it may pass
under that provision on or before July 31, 1985. We issue a direction
accordingly. If the State Government approves the scheme with or
without any modification, such approved scheme shall be published
under section 68D (3) of the Act on or before August 31, 1985. If
the State Government fails to dispose of the matter accordingly D
within the time specified above, the scheme published under section
68C of the Act shall stand quashed with effect from August 31, 1985.
The order of the Tribunal and the order of the High Conrt to the
extent they cancel the temporary permits issued in favour of the
appellants are set aside. The appellants are permitted to operate E
their services under the temporary permits issued to them under
section 68F (IC) of the Act oh January I 0, 1980 and the operation
of the said temporary permits shall come to an end in accordance
with law.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no
F
order as to costs.
N. V.K. Appeals allowed.
·;
'
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "temporary permit"Sign in to search