RAM KRISHNAVERMA ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 378 · Decided: 31-03-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAM KRISHNAVERMA ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
MARCH 31, 1992 
B 
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act 1939 : 
Sections 68-C, 68-D and 68-F Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sectimis 80 
C and 98-Grant of pennit to private operators on nationalised routes-Draft 
scheme published under old Act-Private operators obtaining permits under 
new Act for routes covered by the schem~rant of pennit to any other 
operator for the routes covered by the scheme-Whether illegal and without 
jurisdiction-J.Vhether corridor protection permissible. 
D 
Constitution of India 1950 : 
Articles 136, 141, 142 and 226 Court should neutralise any undeserved 
and unfair advantage gained by party invoking its jurisdiction. 
Precedent~~racrice and Procedure--Supreme Court two Judge bench 
E not to over rule decision of rliree judge bench. 
Administrative Law. 
Natural Justice-l'rinciple of right to hearing-Forfeiture of-When 
party obtains undue advantage by protracting proceedings and nullifying 
F 
objective. 
To nationalise the Saharanpur - Shahdara - Delhi route a draft 
scheme dated 26th February, 1959 was published, and the approved 
scheme published on September 29, 1959 was quashed by the high Court 
G by judgments dated October 31, 1961 and February 7, 1962 as against 50 
operators and being upheld against other SO operators. The State Govt. 
was permitted to given fresh hearing to the 50 objectors, on the basis of 
the original proposal which was upheld in Jeewan Nath Bahl & Ors. v. State 
ofU.P. 
H 
Out of the 50 operators some filed successive suits and obtained 
378 
R.K. VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. 
379 
in.iuction from different courts scuttling the hearing and keeping it pend-
A 
ing for well over 25 years. 
A writ petition was filed in this Court assailing, that the delay in 
approving the scheme amounts to an abuse of process of law, and that 
public interest thereby suffered, and the Court held in Shri Chand etc. v. 
Govt. of U.P. & Ors., (1985] Suppl. 2 SCR 688 that the delay of26 years in B 
disposing of the objedions resulted in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) 
of the Constitution, and accordingly quashed the draft scheme dated 
February 26, 1959. The Government was directed to frame the scheme 
afresh, if necessary. 
Pursuant thereto the U.P. State Road Corporation published the 
draft scheme on February 13, 1986. While it was pending the Motor 
Vehicles Act 59 of 1988 came into force with effect from July 1, 1989. 
Bulandshahr to Delhi route was also nationalised in the approved scheme 
published in the State Gazette dated September 27, 1986. 
After the 1988 Act came into force, the respondents applied for and 
were granted permits for Saharanpur to Ghaziabad via Shahdara 1·outes 
etc. 
c 
D 
The appellants filed the writ petitions in the High Court and the 
same wer~ dismissed by judgment dated July 23, 1990. The draft scheme E 
published in 1986 was held by the hearing authority to have been lapsed 
by operation of Section 100(4) of the Act. 
In the writ petition filed by the S.T.U. the High Court by its judgment 
dated March 16, 1990 held that the draft scheme stood lapsed within one 
year from the date of the publication of the draft scheme, and accordingly 
upheld the order of the hearing authority. S.L.P. No. 6300/91 was filed 
against this judgment. 
F 
Special Leave Petition Nos. 9701/90, 9702/90 and 2083/91 were filed 
aga~nst the High Court's judgment dismissing the writ petitions in which G 
grant of permits under Section 80 of the Motor· Vehicles Act on the 
Muzaffarnagar-Chausana; Ghaziabad to Shahdara, Saharanpur to 
Ghaziabad covered and partly overlapping nationalised routes were ques-
tioned. 
On the questions : (1) what is the effect of Shri Chand etc. v. Govt. H 
380 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992] 2 S.C.R. 
A of U.P. over Jeevan Nath Bahl & Ors. v. State of U.P. and (2) whether the 
draft scheme dated February 13, 1986 stood lapsed under Section 100(4) 
~ 
of the Act. 
Granting special leave and allowing the appeals, the Court, 
B 
HELD : l(a) Consistent law laid down by this Court is that draft 
scheme under Section 68-C and approved under Section 68-D of Chapter 
IV A of the Repealed Act (Chapter VI of the Act), is a law and it has overriding 
effect over Chapter IV of the repealed Act (Chapter V of the Act). It operates 
against everyone unless it is modified. It excludes private operators from the 
C 
area or route or a portion thereof covered under the scheme ex

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.