SHRI CHAND ETC. versus GOVERNMENT OF U.P. LUCKNOW & ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 688 · Decided: 23-08-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
688 
SHRI CHAND ETC. 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF U.P. LUCKNOW & ORS. 
AUGUST 23, 1985 
[E.s. VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ ·] 
Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 32 and 19 (1) (g) - Delay 
in performance 
of statutory duties -
Whether violates -
Fundamental Right - s. 68-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1959. 
Motor Vehicles Act 1939, s. 68 (C) and 68 (D) - Draft scheme 
to operate stage carriages - Unreasonable delay in the approval 
and publication of the scheme - Whether renders the scheme bad in 
law. 
The State Government 
of Uttar Pradesh after overruling 
objections approved a draft scheme and published it under sub-
section (3) of section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 on 
29th September, 1959 to authorise the State Transport Undertaking 
of Uttar Pradesn to operate state carriages on the inter-state 
route between Saharanpur and Delhi to the total exclusion of all 
other operators. The validity of the scheme was challenged before 
the High Court of Allahabad by 50 operators. The High Court by 
its judgment dated October 30, 1961 directed the State Government 
not to enforce the approved scheme against the said operators and 
also ordered that a fresh enquiry into the question whether the 
scheme should be approved or not, be held. The approved scheme 
became final as regards other operators. The result was that 
while the 50 operators who had filed Writ Petitions were able to 
operate their stage carriages on the route,· those who had not 
filed the writ petitions could not operate. The u.p. State Road 
Transport Corporation however commenced to ·operate its stage 
carriage too. 
The respondent State Government has not· been able to hear 
the objections to the scheme as directed by the High Court in 
1961 because of certain orders of injunction passed by the Civil 
Courts restraining the State Government from proceeding with the 
hearing in suits filed by or at the instance of one or the other 
of the 50 operators who have been running their services on the 
route all these 24 years. 
..•
. SllRI CHAND v. GOVT. OF U.P. 
689 
1be petitioners in their petitions UDder Art. 32 questioned 
A 
the validity of the proceedings . pending before the State Govern-
ment pursuant to the draft scheme published under Sec. 68-C of 
the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. 
Allowing the Writ Petitions, 
llELD: 1. It is very strange tbat Civil Courts. bave issued 
orders of injunction from time to time effectively preventing the 
State Government from disposing of the matter. This is a caae in 
which the Civil Courts should not have issued orders of injunc-
tion at all since such suits are barred UDder· sec. 9 of the Code 
B 
of Civil Procedure. ( 690 H] 
c 
I 
. 
2. Delay in performance of statutory duties amounts to an 
abuse of process of law and bas to be remedied by the Court 
particul.arly When the public interest suffers thereby. [691 E-F] 
In the instant case, the delay is in the order of 26 years. 
D 
The situation created by the unreasonable delay in the approval 
of the scheme bas not merely resulted in the violation of Art 14 
of the Constitution. but. also of the fundamental right of the 
other. operators guaranteed under Art 19 (1) (g) ofthe Constitu-
tion. Therefore; the draft scheme published on FebruarY 26, 1959 
and the proceedings which have taken place pursuant thereto are 
quashed. The State Government is directed not to proceed with the 
E 
bearing of the matter. It is open to the State Transport Under-
. taking to publish a fresh draft scheme UDder Section 68-C of the 
Act if it is necessary to do so. [692 C, 691 A-BJ 
YogesJ.ar Jaiml etc.v. State Transport Appellate TribuDal 
and Ors A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 516, 8-1 Chaad Gupta v. 
RegfC!ll!il 
F 
'fiansport Autbority Ujjaia & Ors. 
[1985] Supp. 2 s.c.11.. 682 
followed. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 1174 and 
11851 Of 1985. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
U.R. Lalit and B.s. Chauhan for the Petitioner in W.P. No. 
1174 of 1985. 
G 
K.K. Venugopal and R.P. Singh for the petitioner in W.P. No. 
H 
11851 of 1985. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
690 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. 
VENKATAllAMlAH·, 
J • These 
two petitions are filed under 
Article 32 of the constitution. The petitioners have questioned 
the validity of the proceedings which are pending before the 
State Government pursuant to a draft scheme published · under 
section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 
1939 (

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