NISAR AHMAD AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

A v.

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 9, 1994

[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) B '

Motor Vehicles Act, 193911988:

Sections 68-C100(3) Provis9, 100(4)-Draft Scheme-Approval by Central Government and State Government-{]pheld by Supreme C Court-Right of hearing given to some operators-Forfeited due to abuse of process of the Court-Prior approval of Central Government mandatory--

Complied with under the 1939 Act under which the scheme was proposed-Hence not required under the 1988 Act-S. 100(4) of the 1988 Act-Held not applicable.

In Rama Krishna Venna and Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR (1992) 2 SCC 620, this Court held that the draft scheme published on 25.2.1959 and the fresh draft scheme published pursuant to this Court's directions on 13.2.1986 had not lapsed.

In Jeevan Nath Wahal's case this Court gave the right of hearing to E 50 operators but the right was forfeited as they resorted to abuse of the process of the Court. Thereafter the approved scheme was published by the Government on 29.5.1993. Challenging the approved scheme and the correctness of Jeevan Nath Wahal's case the appellants filed Writ petition before the High Court. The Writ petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal. F

On behalf of the appellants, it was contended tbat by operation of S.100(3) proviso of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the prior approval of the Central Government relating to the scheme on the inter-State route was mandatory and this Court never intended to violate that requirement; nor did this Court intend to revive the lapsed draft scheme.

Dismissing_ the appeal, this Court

HELD: 1.1. The directions issued by this Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution are binding on all the P.arties including the 50 operators and were declared to be bound by the orders passed by this H 357

A Court in Rama Krishna Venna's Case. Therefore, they are bound y the orders passed by this Court. in the above judgment. [360-C]

1.2. The Central Government had given its prior approval on September 9, 1959 and the scheme was thereafter approved by th_!! State Government on September 29, 1959. Therefore, as regards the approval of the Central Government is concerned under the 1939 Act the mandatory requirement was complied with. What is required by the proviso to subsection 3 of Section 100 is to a scheme proposed under the 1988 Act. The present one is not scheme proposed under the 1988 Act and therefore, the prior approval of the Central Government under the Act is not necessary.

C The scheme published by the State Government on February 13, 1986 was under the 1939 Act. That draft scheme became final pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Jeevan Nath Wahal's case. The hearing was delayed due to dilatory tactics adopted by the operators and as per the directions of this Court in Ramakrishna Venna's case the draft scheme D was approved. In view of that matter and since this Court llas already approved the draft scheme not only dated February 26, 1959 but also of February 13, 1986, the question of the lapse under sub-section 4 of Section 100 does not arise. [360-G-H, 361-A-B]

Rama Krishna Venna and Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR (1992) 2 SC 620 E nd Jeevan Nath Wahal's case (C.A. No.' 1616/68 decided on 3.4.1968) referred to.

. G

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6283-88 and 6289-90 of 1994.

. .

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.94 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M. W. P. Nos. 5647/93, 4056 (MB)/93, 5711(MB)/93, W.P. No. 3968/93, 5222 and 3968 of 1993.

G. Ramaswamy for the Appellants in Nos. 1-4 .

Soli J. Sorabjee and P.D. Sharma for the Appellants in Nos. 5-6.

K.K. Venugupal, Parveen Swarup and Pramod Swarup for the Respondents.

H Gaurav Jain and Abha Jain for the Intervenor in C.A. No. 6283/94.

NISARAHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. 359

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted. Application for intervention allowed. Heard Counsel for appellants and the respondents.

The case has chequered history the facts of which have been traced B by this Court in Rama Krishna Venna and Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR (1992) 2 SC 620. This Court in that judgment held that the draft scheme published on February 26, 1959 and the fresh draft scheme published pursuant to the directions by this Court on February 13, 1986 had not lapsed. The 50

operators to whom this Court in Jeevan Nath Wahal's Case gave the right of hearing, by resorting to the abuse of the process of the Court, forfeited C their right of hearing and they no more would be entitled to the hearing befme the approving authority. It was also declared inleevan Nath Wahal's case that this Court had already approved the Shaharanpur-Shahdra-Delhi scheme published under Section 68 C except to the extent of hearing the objections of the 50 operators. The hearing being only a procedural for- D mality, the objections filed by the 50 operators outlived their purpose.

Accordingly this Court gave direction as under :

...... The grant of permits to all the respondents/private operators and respondents nos. 7 to 285 in C.A. No.1198/92 (SLP No.

9701190) under Section 80 of the Act or any others on the respec- E tive routes, parts or portions of the nationalised routes on February 13, 1986 draft scheme are quashed. The hearing authority shall lodge the objections of the 50 operators including the appellants herein. The competent authority shall approve the draft scheme of 1986 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the F judgm-ent, and publish the approved scheme in the gazette. The permits' granted to the 50 operators or any other shall stand cancelled from that date, if not having expired in the meanwhile.

No permit shall be renewed. Appropriate action: should be taken by respondent 3 to in C.S. No. 1198/92 (SLP 9701190) to see that all the permits granted to the 50 operators including the appellants G are seized and cancelled. The U.P. State Transport Corporation shall obtain required additional permits, if need be, and put the stage carriages on the routes to provide transport service, to the travelling public immediately on publication of the approved draft scheme in the State gazette. The appeal arising out of SLP No. H

2033/91 is allowed with costs throught against respondent Nos. 4 to 13. The appeals arising out of SLP Nos: 6300/91, 9701/90 and 9702/90 are allowed without costs.

Thereafter the approved scheme was published by the Government on May 29, 1993. The appellants filed the Writ Petition in High Court not B only questioning the correctness of the judgment of this Court but also the approved scheme published by the Government on May 29, 1993. In our view quite rightly High Court declined to accede to the contention made by the appellants on the correctness of the Judgment of this Court. The directions issued by this Court under Section 142(1) are binding on all the C parties including the 50 operators and were declared to be bound by the orders passed by this Court in Rama Krishna Venna's case. Therefore, they are bound by the order passed by this court in the above judgment.

The only contention raised by Shri G. Ramaswami, the learned senior D counse~ is that by operation of Section 100(3) proviso of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for shortthe Act), the prior approval of the Central Government relating to the scheme on the inter-state route is mandatory and this Court never intended to violate that mandatory requirement in proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 100. It is also contended that if the Scheme was not published under sub-section 4 of Section 100 within a period of one E year from the date of the publication of the proposed draft cheme under sub-section 4 of Section 100, the draft scheme stood lapsed this Court did not intend to revive the lapsed c4'aft scheme. We find no force in the contentions. As regards prior approval of the Central Government under proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 100 is concerned the Central Govem- F ment had approved the draft scheme dated February 26, 1959 which was , upheld not only in Jeevan Nath Wahal's case but also in Rama Krishna

Venna's case. It is not in dispute that the Central Government had given its prior approv~ on September 9, 1959 and the scheme was approved, thereafter, by the State Government on September 29, 1959. Therefore, as regards the approval of the Central Government is concerned under Act G 4 of 1939, the mandatory requirement was complied with. What is required by the proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 100 is to a scheme proposed under the Act. The present one is not a scheme proposed under the Act and that, therefore, the prior approval of the Central Government under the Act is not necessary. It is also to be seen that sub-section 4 of section H 100 is clearly inapplicable in the facts of this case. The scheme published

NISARAHMAD v.STATEOFU.P. 361

by the State Government on February 13, 1986 was under the Act 4of1939. A That draft scheme was pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, in consequence to the closing of hearing directed by this Court in Jeevan Nath Wahal's case became final. The hearing was delayed due to dilatory tactics adopted by the operators and as per the directions of this Court in Ramakrishna Venna's case the draft scheme was approved. In view of that B matter and since this Court has already approved the draft scheme not only dated February 26, 1959 but also of February 13, 1986, the question of the lapse under sub-section 4 of Section 100 does not arise. The appeals are aecordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1 lakh.

G.N.

Appeals dismissed.