LexRASID JAVED & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 535 RASID JAVED & ORS. ETC. ETC. V. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. ETC. ETC. (Civil Appeal No. 5951 of 2002) JULY 5, 2010 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] Motor Vehicle Act, 1988: A B s. 102(1) - Cancellation or modification of scheme - c Inter-state route - Saharanpur-Delhi route and other routes - 1993 Scheme whereby the entire Saharanpur-Delhi route . became fully nationalized for exclusive operation by State Transport Undertakings - Proposal to modify the 1993 Scheme by State Government - Issuance of Notification 0 dated 16.04.1999 uls. 102(1) - Objections invitf:3d and heard by Hearing Authority - Hearing Authority approving the proposed modification that private operators be allowed to ply their vehicles - However, State Government issued Notification dated 15.04.2000 u/s. 102(1) rlw s. 21 of the 1897 Act, to rescind Notification dated 16.04.1999 - Validity of - E Held: Notification dated 15. 04. 2000 is valid and does not suffer from any legal flaw - There was no impediment for State Government in exercising its power to rescind the Notification dated 16.04.1999 since the order df Hearing Authority cannot be treated as order of State Government u/s. 102(1)- General F Clauses Act, 1897 - s. 21. s. 102 - Cancellation or modification of scheme - Extent of authority to Hearing Authority - Held: Delegatee must confine his activity within four corners of powers vested in him G and if he acts beyond that, his action cannot have any legal sanction unless ratified by de/egator - Distinction must be maintained where hearing authority is empowered by State Government to hear objections and approve proposed 535 H 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R. A modification or modify the approved sc;heme and a case where it is authorized to hear objections relating to proposed • modification to the approved scheme - On facts, Hearing Authority not authorized to approve the proposed modification or modify the approved scheme - Order of Hearing Authority s being in excess of authority given to him, cannot be construed as final order of approval uls. 102 (1). Permit granted to appellant relating to Saharanpur-Delhi route - Status of appellant's permit - Held: Said permits related to routes which overlapped Delhi-Saharanpur notified C route - By the 1959 Scheme and 1993 Scheme, entire Saharanpur-Delhi route became fully nationalized for exclusive operation by State Transport Undertakings and no private operator could operate on the said route - Regional Transport Authority cannot either renew permit of such private D operators or give any fresh permit in respect of route which overlaps notified route - Thus, appellants' permits stood cancelled. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: s. 68 C and 680 - Publication E of a scheme of road transport service by State Transport Undertakings - Effect of - Held: No person other than STU may operate on the notified area or notified route except as provided in the scheme itself. General Clauses Act, 1897: s. 21 - Invocation of.:.. Held: F Authority which has power to issue notification has undoubted power to rescind or modify the notification in the like manner - On facts, there was no impediment for State Government in exercising its power uls. 102 of the 1988 Act rlw s. 21 to rescind the Notification dated 16. 04. 1999 - Order of Hearing G Authority was not an order of approval uls.102(1) of the 1988 Act - Power of State Government to rescind Notification dated 16. 04. 1999 did not get exhausted - Motor Vehicles Act, 1.988 - s. 102(1). H The inter-State route of Saharanpur-Delhl became a RASID JAVED & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. & . 537 ANR. ETC. notified route under the 1959 Scheme. It was provided in A the Scheme that the persons .other than the State Transport Undertaking (STU) would not be permitted in . plying any road transport service on the said route or portion thereof except as stated therein. The private operators challenged the Scheme. The H.igh Court B directed the State G'overnment not to enforce the 1959 Scheme against the said operators. This Court in * Jeewan Nath Wahal's case upheld the order of High Court. Thereafter, pursuant to the decision in **Shri Chand's case, the UPSRTC published a draft scheme on February c · 13, 1986 for 39 routes: Saharanpur-Delhi and others. While the said draft scheme was pending, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was repealed and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.