KRISHAN KUMAR versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 500 · Decided: 09-08-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH, P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
KRJSHAN KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
AUGUST 9, 1991 
[K.N. SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Section 68C-Notification dated 
11. 10. 1979 to make a notified route-Delay due to conduct of affected 
parties by approaching the Government and the High Court-Coming 
into force of the new Act (The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) w.e.f. 
I. 7.1989-Final notification dated 29.8.1990 u/s. 100(3) of the new 
Act-Whether notification dated 11.10. 1979 lapsed or whether within 
limitation. 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 100, 217(2)-0bject of-
Pending scheme under Section 68C of the old Act (The Motor Vehicles 
Act, 1939)-Final notification issued under Section 100(3) of the new 
Act-Limitation-Computation. 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections JOO, 217(2)-Harmonious 
construction-Reasons indicated. 
E 
Interpretation of Statutes-Harmonious Construction-Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 100and217(2). 
The appellant held a Stage Carriage Permit for plying his vehicle 
on the Kota-Khanpur route, which overlaps a portion of the Kota-
Sangod route. The State Road Transport Corporation vide Notification 
F 
dated 11.10.1979 proposed a scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor 
Vehicles Act 1939 for the exclusive operation of its vehicles on the 
Kota-Sangod route. 
The affected operators of the route, including the appellant, filed 
their objections against the scheme before the authority appointed by 
G 
the State Government which approved the scheme. 
H 
Before the State· Government could issue the final Notification 
under Section 68-D(3) of the old Act, the appellant and other affected 
operators made representation to !he Minister for Transport for afford-
ing them a fresh opportunity of hearing. 
500 
KRISHAN KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
501 
Meanwhile, the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 was enforced with effect 
A 
from I. 7.1989 repealing the old Act . 
...., 
The appellant, thereupon, filed a writ petition before the High 
Court for restraining the State Government from issuing the final 
Notification on the ground that on the enforcement of the new Act, the 
Notification dated U.10.1979 issued under Section 68-C of the old Act 
B 
had lapsed on account of delay in finalisation of the same. 
A similar writ petition had been filed earlier in respect of 
• 
-\-
Kishangarh-Sarwad route by one affected party, on similar grounds. A 
learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed that writ petition 
holding that the draft scheme under the old Act was saved by the new c 
Act and the same could legally be finalised under the provisions of the 
new Act. When he filed a Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench 
dismissed the Appeal as well as the various writ petitions including that 
of the appellant by a common order, against which the present appeal 
was made. 
D 
After the judgment of the High Court, the final notification was 
published in the Official Gazette on 29.8.1990 u/s. 100(3) of the new Act. 
The appellant, contended before the Court that since there was 
undue delay of ll years in issuing the final Notification, the scheme as 
proposed under Section 68-C ()f the old Act should be deemed to have 
E 
lapsed and the State Government had no authority or jurisdiction to 
_,, 
finalise the same or to issue Notification under Section 100(3) of the new 
~ 
Act; that since the draft scheme dated ll.10.1979 was not finalised 
under Section 100(3) of the new Act, the same bad lapsed after one year 
from the date of the notification issued u/s. 68-C of the old Act; and that 
since period of one year had already expired from the date of the publi-
F 
cation of the scheme under Section 68-C of old Act, the scheme auto-
matically lapsed and the same could not be finally published under 
Section JOO of the new Act. 
Dismissing the appeal this Court, 
~ --I 
G 
HELD: I.I. The object and purpose of Section 100(4) is to avoid 
delay in finalising a scheme. The Parliament was aware that under the 
old Act schemes were not finalised for long years as a result of which 
public interest suffered, therefore, it prescribed a time frame for the 
approval and publication of schemes. Sub-section (4) prescribes a 
period of limitation during which the State Government should hear 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
502 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1991] 3 S.C.R. 
and consider the objections of the objectors and finalise the scheme and 
publish the same in the Official Gazette and on its failure to do so within 
that period, pena
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.