LexNISAR AHMAD AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
NISAR AHMAD AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
A
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 9, 1994
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.)
B
'
Motor Vehicles Act, 193911988:
Sections 68-C100(3) Provis9, 100(4)-Draft Scheme-Approval by
Central Government and State Government-{]pheld by Supreme C
Court-Right of hearing given to some operators-Forfeited due to abuse of
process of the Court-Prior approval of Central Government mandatory--
Complied with under the 1939 Act under which the scheme was
proposed-Hence not required under the 1988 Act-S. 100(4) of the 1988
Act-Held not applicable.
In Rama Krishna Venna and Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR (1992) 2 SCC
620, this Court held that the draft scheme published on 25.2.1959 and the
fresh draft scheme published pursuant to this Court's directions on
13.2.1986 had not lapsed.
D
In Jeevan Nath Wahal's case this Court gave the right of hearing to E
50 operators but the right was forfeited as they resorted to abuse of the
process of the Court. Thereafter the approved scheme was published by
the Government on 29.5.1993. Challenging the approved scheme and the
correctness of Jeevan Nath Wahal's case the appellants filed Writ petition
before the High Court. The Writ petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal. F
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended tbat by operation of
S.100(3) proviso of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the prior approval of the
Central Government relating to the scheme on the inter-State route was
mandatory and this Court never intended to violate that requirement; nor
did this Court intend to revive the lapsed draft scheme.
G
Dismissing_ the appeal, this Court
HELD: 1.1. The directions issued by this Court under Article 142(1)
of the Constitution are binding on all the P.arties including the 50
operators and were declared to be bound by the orders passed by this H
357
358
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
Court in Rama Krishna Venna's Case. Therefore, they are bound ~y the
orders passed by this Court. in the above judgment. [360-C]
B
1.2. The Central Government had given its prior approval on Sep-
tember 9, 1959 and the scheme was thereafter approved by th_!! State
Government on September 29, 1959. Therefore, as regards the approval of
the Central Government is concerned under the 1939 Act the mandatory
requirement was complied with. What is required by the proviso to sub-
section 3 of Section 100 is to a scheme proposed under the 1988 Act. The
present one is not scheme proposed under the 1988 Act and therefore, the
prior approval of the Central Government under the Act is not necessary.
C The scheme published by the State Government on February 13, 1986 was
under the 1939 Act. That draft scheme became final pursuant to the
directions issued by this Court in Jeevan Nath Wahal's case. The hearing
was delayed due to dilatory tactics adopted by the operators and as per
the directions of this Court in Ramakrishna Venna's case the draft scheme
D was approved. In view of that matter and since this Court llas already
approved the draft scheme not only dated February 26, 1959 but also of
February 13, 1986, the question of the lapse under sub-section 4 of Section
100 does not arise. [360-G-H, 361-A-B]
Rama Krishna Venna and Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR (1992) 2 SC 620
E
~nd Jeevan Nath Wahal's case (C.A. No.' 1616/68 decided on 3.4.1968)
referred to.
F
. G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6283-88
and 6289-90 of 1994.
.
.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.94 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M. W. P. Nos. 5647/93, 4056 (MB)/93, 5711(MB)/93, W.P. No.
3968/93, 5222 and 3968 of 1993.
G. Ramaswamy for the Appellants in Nos. 1-4 .
Soli J. Sorabjee and P.D. Sharma for the Appellants in Nos. 5-6.
K.K. Venugupal, Parveen Swarup and Pramod Swarup for the
Respondents.
H
Gaurav Jain and Abha Jain for the Intervenor in C.A. No. 6283/94.
NISARAHMAD v. STATE OF U.P.
359
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted. Application for intervention allowed. Heard Counsel
for appellants and the respondents.
A
The case has chequered history the facts of which have been traced B
by this Court in Rama Krishna Venna and Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR (1992)
2 SC 620. This Court in that judgment held that the draft scheme published
on February 26, 1959 and the fresh draft scheme published pursuant to the
directions by this Court on February 13, 1986 had not lapsed. The 50
operators to whExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.