ONKAR SINGH & OTHERS versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, AGRA & OTHERS

Citation: [1986] 2 S.C.R. 735 · Decided: 23-04-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

Cl'lKAR SINGH & O'DIRRS 
v. 
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AllTllORITY, 
AGRA & O'DIRRS 
APRIL 23, 1986. 
[E. S. VENKATARAMIAH AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ. ] 
735 
'!otor Vehicles Act, 1939 ss. 68-C and 68-D - Inordinate 
delay in approving the draft scheme - Whether delay prejudices 
public interest warranting interference by court -
Neeo~ssity 
of modifying/approving 
the draft scheme 
expeditiously -
Explained. 
The 
appellants, 
Private 
Operators, 
had 
obtained 
temporary permits under section 68-F (1-C) of the Motor 
Vehicles Act 1939 on the route Somna-Naujheel. They could not 
obtain permits under Chapter IV of the Act to operate on the 
said route since a scheme published in 1960 under section 68-C 
of the Act was in force. They were asked to stop plying their 
vehicles. Aggrieved by the stoppage of the running of their 
vehicles, they filed a Writ Petition in the High Court 
~contending that once temporary permits were issued under 
Section 68-F(l-C) of the Act, they would remain in force until 
the draft scheme published under s. 68-C was approved under s. 
68-D of the Act. The High Court dismissed the Petition on the 
ground that since permits had already been issued to the State 
. Transport Undertaking, the temporary permits issued to other 
t private operators under section 68-F(l-C) of the Act came to 
an end. 
\ 
In the appeal to the Supreme Court, it was contended on 
behalf of the appellants that the draft scheme, published 
under section 68-C of the Act having become stale was liable 
to be quashed due to inordinate delay in completing the 
proceedings under s. 68-D of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal. 
llKLD : l(i) The draft scheme published in the year 1960 
u/s 68-C of the Act is quashed and the Hearing Authority under 
section 68-D of the Act is directed not to proceed with the 
hearing of the matter. [740 F) 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19861 2 s.c.R. 
A 
l.(ii) It is now open to the Uttsr Pradesh State Road;.-
Transport Corporation to publish, if it so desires a fresh 
scheme under section 68-C of the Act. The Corporation on the 
route in question pursuant to the permits issued under section 
68-F(l-A) or under section 68-F(l-C) of the Act, as the case 
1141 be, are permitted to .operate their stage carriages until 
15,10,1986. If a fresh scheme is published under section 68-C 
B 
of the Act within that period it shall be open to the 
Corporation to apply for fresh teq>orary permits under section,...-
68-F(l-A) of the Act. On permits being granted under section 
68-F(l-A) of the Act, all the permits now issued under section 
68-F(l-A) or under section 68-F(l-C) of the Act shall come to 
an end. Until a fresh draft scheme is published under section 
C 
68-C of the Act, it shall be open to any person to make appli-
cations for a stage carriage permit under Chapter IV of the 
Act. [740 F-H; 741 A-BJ 
2.(i) The proviso to section 68-F(l-D) of the Act which 
provides that where the period of operation of a permit in 
D 
relation to any area, route, or portion thereof specified in a 
scheme published under section 68-C of the Act expires after 
such publication, such permit may be renewed for a limited 
period, but the permit so renewed shall cease to be effective 
on the publication of the scheme under sub-section (3) oLi.. 
section 68-D of the Act indicates legislative intention 
E 
regarding the maxilllllll period that may be spent on the 
proceedings which intervene between the date of publication of 
the draft scheme under section 68-C of the Act and the 
publication of the approved or modified scheme under section · 
68-D(3) of the Act. It suggests that it cannot be longer than t 
3 to 5 years which is usually the period during which a permit 
F 
can be in force without renewal as provided in section 58 of f 
the Act. It could never have been in the contemplation of 
Parliament that the period for approving a scheme with or 
without modification or for rejecting it could be 25 years as 
in this case. [739 E-H) 
G 
2.(ii) Two of the undesirable effects of the inordinate 
H 
delay in completing the proceedings under section 68-D of the 
Act are : (i) it exhibits lack of interest on the part of the-+ 
adm:l.nistraton in bringing into effect administrative decisions 
without undue delay; and (ii) the public interest suffers as 
the membtirs of the public are denied normal stage carriage 
ONKAR SINGH v. R.T.A. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 
737 
~ services of an improved kind because the operat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.