PHOOL CHAND GUPTA versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT ADTHORITY, UJJAIN & ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 682 · Decided: 23-08-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
682 
PHOOL CBANll GUPTA 
v. 
REGIONAL TRANSPORT ADTHORITY, 
UJJAIN & ORS. 
AUGUST 23, 1985 
[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. 
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. 
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 
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 
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). 
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~ 
[686 DJ 
) 
P.C.GUPTA v. TRANSPORT AUTHORITY 
683 
2. There is no justification in the circumstances of this 
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] 
A 
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. 
A 
\ 
684 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985) SUPP.2 s.c.R. 
Ravinder Baca and Rame~hwar Nath for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VENKATARAMIAH, J. This is a petition filed under Article 32 
of the Consti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.