U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 442 · Decided: 29-11-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 29, 2004 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MA THUR AND 
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 
C 
Section I 00( 4)-Applicability of-Draft scheme covering Saharanpur-
Shahdara-Delhi route and 38 other routes published on 13.2.1986 under S. 
68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Before the objections against the 
said draft scheme could finally be decided the 1988 Act came into force-
High Court held that the said draft scheme had lapsed by virtue of S. 
D 100(4)-Correctness of-Held: In view of the earlier decisions of Supreme 
Court the said draft scheme had not lapsed-Hence it was not open to the 
High Court to examine the said question all over again and to hold that the 
said draft scheme had lapsed-Moreover, the scope of the writ petition was 
very narrow and, therefore, the High Court could not have gone into the 
question as to whether the said draft scheme had lapsed under S. I 00( 4)-
E Contention of the private operators that (i) State Road Transport corporation 
was not in a position to cater to the needs of the people in the area and (ii} 
the nationalization of the scheme would lead to serious financial trouble and 
would throw the staff employed by them out of employment, rejected-Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1939, Ss.68-C and 68-D. 
F 
G 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Articles 32 and 226-Writ petition-Maintainability of-Held: If a writ 
petition filed under Art. 226 is considered on merits and dismissed, the same 
issue cannot be raised in a subsequent petition under Art. 32. 
Practice and Procedure : 
Res judicata-Principle of-Applicability-Held: Is based on the need 
of giving a finality to judicial decisions-The said principle which prevents 
H the same case being twice litigated is of general application and is not linked 
442 
U.P. STATE ROAD TRPT. CORPN. v. STATE 
443 
by the specific words of S. 11 CPC in this respect-Res judicata applies A 
also between two stages in the same litigation-Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908, S.11. 
Res judicata-Principle of-Applicability-Statutory prohibition-
Held: Having regard to the factual position, the contention that the principle B 
of res judicata can have no application if there is a statutory prohibition, 
unsustainable. 
The appellant-Corporation prepared a draft scheme to nationalize 
Saharanpur-Shahdara-Delhi route and the same was published on 
29.9.1959 in accordance with Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, C 
1939. This Court quashed the said scheme. It was, however, left open 
to the appellant Corporation to publish a fresh draft scheme if it was 
necessary to do so. 
Thereafter, the appellant-Corporation published a fresh scheme on 
13-2-1986, which not only covered the Saharanpur-Shahdara-Delhi route 
but also 38 other routes. Objections were filed against the scheme and 
before they could be finally decided. the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came 
into force w.e.f. 1.7.1989 repealing the 1939 Act. The competent authority 
thereafter held that the proposed scheme had lapsed by virtue of Section 
100(4) of the 1988 Act. The appellant-Corporation preferred a writ 
petition but the High Court also took the view that the scheme had 
lapsed and accordingly upheld the order of the competent authority and 
dismissed the writ petition. This Court on 31.3.1992 in Ram Krishna 
Verma 's case allowed the appeal against the decision of the High Court. 
The State Government published a notification on 29.5.1993 whereby 
the draft scheme published on 13.2.1986 was approved. 
Feeling aggrieved by the approved scheme dated 29-5-1993 several 
. 
operators filed writ petitions in the High Court but the same were 
dismissed on 19-1:1.-1999 on the ground that the scheme stood approved 
by the decisions of this Court in Ram Krishna Verma 's case and also in 
Nisar Ahmad's case. This Court in Gajraj Singh 's cas.e allowed the appeals 
preferred against the judgment of the High Court. It was held in that 
case that the decision in Ram Krishna Verma 's case was confined only 
to one route namely. Saharanpur-Shahdara-Delhi route and as a result 
of the said decision the draft scheme stood approved only with regard 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
444 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A to the said route. The notification published on 13-2-1986 included not 
only the Saharanpur-Shahdara-Delhi route, but also 38 other routes 
and consequently the scheme had not been approved with regard to 
these 38 rout

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