Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Approved Draft Scheme Cannot Be Quashed For Inordinate Delay; Existing Permit Holders Are Entitled To Compensation; Temp. Permit Cannot Be Renewed.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru' Managing Director Vs. State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. Transport & Anr. On 01/06/2007 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : WRIT - A NO. 9332 OF 2002
CORAM : Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal,J. And Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Reserved

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9332 Of 2002
U.P.State Road Transport Corporation V.
State Of U.P. And Another

Alongwith
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5857 Of 2002
and
Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos.47341 And 50932 Of 2002,
and
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.32370 Of 2006

And

Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos.29646, 32275,
37290, 37292, 41381, 41864, 41866, 45890,
45946, 47078, 49856, 53154, 55448 And 68209
of 2006 And 7773 Of 2007


Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.
Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

(Delivered By R.K.Agrawal, J.)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9332 Of 2002 Has Been Filed By U.P.State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter Referred To As "the Corporation") Challenging The Order Dated 3.11.2001 Passed By The Hearing Authority/Special Secretary (Transport), U.P. Government, Parivahan Anubhag - IV, U.P., Lucknow, Respondent No.2, Whereby He Had Decided The Objections Filed Against The Draft Scheme Published On 13.2.1986 And Had Finalised The Same With Certain Modifications Whereas Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5857 Of 2002 Has Been Filed By Smt. Rashmi Gupta And Smt. Anju Gupta Challenging The Same Order Passed By The Hearing Authority Insofar As It Related To The Route, Known As Shamli - Panipat Via Kairana (Yamuna Bridge) On Which The Two Petitioners Claim To Be Operating Their Vehicles.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.47341 Of 2002 Has Been Filed By The Three Petitioners Seeking Renewal Of Their Permits Sanctioned Vide Resolution Dated 19.2.1991 And Issued During The Years 1996-97 And For Issuance Of Temporary Permits To Them Pending Renewal.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.50932 Of 2002 Has Been Filed By Rajendra Kumar For Enforcement Of The Scheme As Modified By The Hearing Authority Vide Order Dated 3.11.2001. This Writ Petition Was Filed Before The Lucknow Bench Of This Court And Was Registered As Writ Petition No.3187 (MB) Of 2002. However, Vide Order Dated 28.10.2002 The Records Were Transmitted To The Principal Seat At Allahabad For Being Heard And Disposed Of In Accordance With Law As No Part Of The Cause Of Action Had Arisen Within The Territorial Limits Of The Lucknow Bench Of This Court.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.32370 Of 2006 Have Been Filed By 30 Petitioners Seeking A Writ In The Nature Of Mandamus Commanding The State Transport Authority, U.P., Lucknow, Respondent No.2, To Renew Their Regular Stage Carriage Permits For A Further Period Of Five Years In The Ensuing Meeting To Be Held On 16.6.2006.
In The Remaining Writ Petitions, Viz., Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos.29446, 32275, 37290, 37292, 41381, 41864, 41866, 45890, 45946, 47078, 49856, 53154, 55448 And 68209 Of 2006 And 7773 Of 2007, The Petitioners Therein Who Claim To Be The Existing Operators, Seek A Writ Of Certiorari Quashing The Order Dated 12.5.2006 Passed By The Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Civil Secretariat, U.P., Lucknow And 16.5.2006 Passed By The State Transport Authority, U.P., Lucknow, Whereby A Policy Decision Has Been Taken To Grant Temporary Permits Pending Decision By This Court On The Notified Scheme. As All These Writ Petitions Raise Similar Issue, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.29646 Of 2006 Is Being Treated As The Leading Petition In This Sub Group.
Facts Of The Case :
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9332 Of 2002:
The Facts Giving Rise To Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9332 Of 2002 Are As Follows:-
According To The Corporation, A Draft Scheme Proposing To Nationalise Saharanpur-Sahdara-Delhi Route Was Published On 26.2.1959 Under Section 68-C Of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter Referred To As "the 1939 Act"). The Draft Scheme Was Approved On 29.9.1959 Under Section 68-D Of The 1939 Act. It Was Published After Taking Approval Of The Central Government. It Excluded Private Operators From The Area/route Except To The Extent Included Under The Scheme. The Validity Of The Aforementioned Scheme Was Challenged Before This Court On 31.10.1961 In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3104 Of 1959, Aftab Ahmad V. Government Of India And Others. This Court, Vide Judgment And Order Dated 31.10.1961, Quashed The Scheme Only With Respect To The 32 Petitioners Therein. The Scheme Was Not Quashed In Its Entirety. It Appears That 18 Other Petitioners Also Challenged The Validity Of The Aforementioned Scheme By Means Of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3154 Of 1961, Pt. Banarasi Das V. Government Of Uttar Pradesh And Others. This Court, Vide Judgment And Order Dated 7.2.1962, Quashed The Scheme In Respect Of 18 Petitioners Only. The Matter Was Taken By The Petitioner In Appeal Before The Hon'ble Supreme Court And The Apex Court, Vide Judgment And Order Dated 3.4.1968, Passed In Civil Appeal Nos.1616-1617 Of 1966, Had Held That The Scheme Was Final For Others And No Permit Could Be Granted Excepting Those 50 Operators Whose Writ Petitions Have Been Allowed. The Matter Relating To 50 Private Operators Remained Pending With The State Government For More Than 25 Years. Some Private Operators, Namely Shri Chand And Others, Preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.11744 Of 1985 Before The Hon'ble Supreme Court And The Apex Court, Vide Judgment And Order Dated 23.8.1985 In The Case Of Shri Chand V. Government Of U.P., Lucknow And Others, (1985) 4 SCC 169, Quashed The Scheme On Account Of Inordinate Delay And Directed The State Government To Frame A Fresh Scheme, If Necessary. Thereafter, The Corporation Examined The Matter And Published A Draft Scheme On 13.2.1986 Under Section 68-C Of The 1939 Act In Relation To Saharanpur-Delhi Route And Also Included 38 Other Routes Of The Area, Which Provided For The Complete Exclusion Of The Private Operators On The Said Route. The Existing Operators Filed Their Objections To The Draft Scheme And The Matter Remained Pending. In The Meantime, The 1939 Act Was Repealed And A New Enactment, Namely The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter Referred To As "the 1988 Act") Came Into Force With Effect From 1.7.1989. With The Coming Into Force Of The 1988 Act, The Private Operators Raised Objections Before The Hearing Authority That The Scheme Had Lapsed In View Of Section 100(4) Read With Section 217 Of The 1988 Act. The Hearing Authority Had Upheld The Objections Raised By The Private Operators And Declared That The Draft Scheme Published In 1986 Had Lapsed By Operation Of Section 100(4) Of The 1988 Act. The Corporation Challenged The Order Of The Hearing Authority Before This Court, Which Order Was Upheld, Vide Judgment And Order Dated 16.3.1990. The Matter Was Taken Up In Appeal Before The Hon'ble Supreme Court And The Apex Court, Vide Judgment And Order Dated 31.3.1992, In The Case Of Ram Krishna Verma And Others V. State Of U.P. And Others, (1992) 2 SCC 620, Had Held That The Scheme Dated 13.2.1986 Had Not Lapsed. It Also Directed The Competent Authority To Approve The Draft Scheme Of 1986 Within A Period Of 30 Days And Publish The Scheme In The Gazette. The Permit Granted To The 50 Operators Or Any Other Person Was Also Cancelled And No Permits Were To Be Renewed. The Draft Scheme Dated 13.2.1986 Was Published Vide Notification Dated 29.5.1993. After Its Publication, The Corporation Started Plying Its Services On Various Routes Mentioned At Serial Nos.2 To 39 Of The Draft Scheme As Well As The Final Scheme Dated 29.5.1993. According To The Petitioner, The Apex Court In The Case Of Nisar Ahmad And Others V. State Of U.P. And Others, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 460, Had Upheld The Scheme Dated 26.2.1959 And Also The Scheme Dated 13.2.1986. The Notification Dated 29.5.1993 Publishing The Final Scheme Was Once Again Challenged By The Private Operators Before This Court. The Entire Bunch Of The Writ Petitions With Leading Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.24470 Of 1993, Pratosh Kumar V. State Of U.P. And Others, Was Dismissed By This Court Vide Judgment And Order Dated 19.11.1999. The Matter Was Taken Up In Appeal Before The Hon'ble Supreme Court And The Apex Court, Vide Judgment And Order Dated 1.5.2001, In The Case Of Gajraj Singh And Others V. State Of U.P. And Others, (2001) 5 SCC 762, While Partly Allowing The Appeals, Had Set Aside The Judgment And Order Dated 19.11.1999 Passed By This Court. The Apex Court Had Held That The Scheme Of Nationalisation With Regard To Delhi Saharanpur Route Alone Had Become Final In Terms Of The Direction Given By It In The Case Of Ram Krishna Verma (supra). However, With Regard To Remaining 38 Routes, The Apex Court Directed That Objections Filed Against The Draft Scheme Dated 18.2.1986 Shall Be Heard And Disposed Of By The Competent Authority On Merits. It Also Directed That Only Those Objections Would Be Heard And Decided, Which Were Filed Within 30 Days From The Date Of Publication Of The Draft Scheme Which Came To An End Before The Date Of Coming Into Force Of The 1988 Act. The Hearing Authority, Vide Order Dated 3.11.2001, After Giving A Hearing To The Objectors And To The Corporation, Had Approved The Scheme Dated 13.2.1986 With Certain Modifications, Which Order Is Under Challenge In The Present Writ Petition.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5857 Of 2002 :
In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5857 Of 2002, The Two Petitioners, Namely, Smt. Rashmi Gupta And Smt. Anju Gupta, Claimed That They Have Been Granted Permits On The Route, Known As Shamli-Kairana (Yamuna Bridge)-Panipat, Under The Provisions Of The 1988 Act And Are Plying Their Vehicles Alongwith Other Five Permit Holders On The Said Route. The Permits Were Granted Pursuant To The Resolution Dated 11.1.1992 Passed By The State Transport Authority, U.P., Lucknow. According To The Petitioners, The Route In Question Partly Overlapped The Routes Mentioned At Serial No.18 In The Draft Scheme Dated 13.2.1986 From Shamli To Yamuna Bridge. Pursuant To The Directions Given By The Apex Court On 1.5.2001 In The Case Of Gajraj Singh (supra) The Hearing Authority Published Notices On 26.5.2001 In The Daily Newspapers Notifying The Date Of Hearing On 29.6.2001. The Petitioners Claimed To Have Appeared Before The Hearing Authority And Raised Their Objections/presented Their Case. They Also Filed Documents In Support Of Their Claim. It Is Alleged By The Petitioners Herein That The Hearing Authority While Passing The Order Dated 3.11.2001 Had Not Considered Their Objections Which Deserved To Be Considered In Accordance With The Proviso To Sub-section (3) Of Section 100 Of The 1988 Act. Their Grievance Is That While The Hearing Authority Had Permitted Five Other Permit Holders To Ply Their Vehicles, They Have Been Arbitrarily Denied The Right To Ply Their Vehicles. The Permit Held By The Petitioners Have Not Been Renewed.
This Court's View (judgment Dated 23.7.2002):
After The Exchange Of Pleadings, Both These Writ Petitions Were Heard By This Court. This Court Formulated The Following Five Points For Determination:-
"1.Whether Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9332 Of 2002 Filed By U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Is Maintainable, In The Absence Of The Private Operators Who Have Been Allowed To Ply Their Vehicles Co-jointly With The U.P.State Road Transport Corporation On The Routes Including The Overlapping Portion Thereof As Indicated In The Impugned Order?

2. Whether The Scheme Dated 13.2.86 Has Lapsed By Efflux Of Time In View Of Section 100(4) Of The New Act?

3. Whether The Scheme Dated 13.2.86 As It Stands Modified By Order Dated 3.11.2001 Is Open To Challenge At The Behest Of Private Operators Who Were Not ''existing Operators'?

4. Whether The Private Operators Who Have Been Allowed To Ply Their Vehicles Alongwith U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Had Filed Their Objections Within 30 Days From 13.2.86 And Whether Such Objections Were Available On Record For Being Disposed Of In Accordance With Law As Per Directions Given By The Lordships Of Supreme Court In Ram Krishna Verma's Case?

5. Whether The Impugned Scheme Is In Antagonism Of Articles 14 And 19(1)(g) Of The Constitution?"

So Far As The First Question Is Concerned, This Court Came To The Conclusion That The Writ Petition Filed By The Corporation Is Not Liable To Be Dismissed Merely On The Ground Of Non-impleadment Of All The Existing Operators As Party Respondent To The Writ Petition As The Interest Of All The Existing Operators Was Well Represented By Those Who Have Voluntarily Chosen To Put In Appearance In Opposition To The Writ Petition.
In Respect Of The Second Question, This Court After Considering The Various Decisions Of The Apex Court Came To The Conclusion That The Draft Scheme Dated 13.2.1986 Stood Lapsed Under Section 100(4) Of The 1988 Act Insofar As It Related To The Routes Mentioned At Serial Nos.2 To 39 Inasmuch As The Scheme As Approved Was Not Published Within One Year From The Date Of Commencement Of The 1988 Act.
So Far As The Third Question Is Concerned, The Court Had Held That In Case The Scheme Stood Obliterated Or Lapsed By Operation Of Law, Its Approval Thereafter Can Be Challenged By Any Person Irrespective Of Whether Such Persons Were Providing Transport Facility On The Date Of Publication Of The Draft Scheme Or Not And Since The Draft Scheme Dated 13.2.1986 Insofar As The Route Nos.2 To 39 Had Lapsed Before Its Approval By Notification Dated 29.5.1993, Any Person Can Challenge The Legality Of The Impugned Order Passed By The Hearing Authority And Seek A Declaration That The Draft Scheme Had Already Lapsed Under Section 100(4) Of The 1988 Act Before Its Modification And, Therefore, It Was Not Open To Be Approved Or Modified. The Writ Petitions Filed By The Private Operators Who Were Granted Permits Subsequent To The Date Of Publication Of The Draft Scheme Were, Therefore, Held To Be Maintainable.
So Far As The Fourth Question Is Concerned, The Court Declined To Go Into That Issue As In Its Opinion The Draft Scheme Itself Had Lapsed In View Of Section 100(4) Of The 1988 Act And It Would Be An Exercise In Futility To Relegate The Case To The Hearing Authority Or Direct It To Return A Finding On This Issue.
In Respect Of The Last Question, The Court Had Held That The Order Passed By The Hearing Authority Has Resulted In Infringement Of Articles 14 And 19(1)(g) Of The Constitution. It Accordingly, Vide Judgment And Order Dated 23.7.2002, Had Partly Quashed The Order Passed By The Hearing Authority As Also The Scheme Dated 13.2.1986 Published Under Section 68-C Of The 1939 Act And The Approved Scheme Dated 29.5.1993 As It Stood Modified By The Order Dated 3.11.2001 To The Extent They Related To The Routes Mentioned At Serial Nos.2 To 39. However, The Order Insofar As It Related To Delhi Saharanpur Route Including The Routes Overlapping On It Was Maintained.
Apex Court's View In Appeal :
The Matter Was Once Again Taken To The Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court, Vide Judgment And Order Dated 29.11.2004, In The Case Of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation V. State Of U.P. And Another, (2005) 1 SCC 444, (1st Case) Had Held That On Earlier Two Occasions It Having Specifically Considered As To Whether The Draft Scheme Dated 13.2.1986 Had Lapsed Under Sub-section (4) Of Section 100 Of The 1988 Act And Having Recorded A Clear Finding That The Scheme Had Not Lapsed, It Was Not At All Open To The High Court To Examine The Said Question All Over Again And To Hold That The Draft Scheme Had Lapsed. The High Court Had Committed A Manifest Error Of Law In Re-examining The Question And Recording A Finding Which Is Totally At Variance With The Earlier Decisions Of The Apex Court. It Further Held That In The Writ Petitions Filed Before The High Court, The Decision Of The Competent Authority Was Assailed And, Therefore, The Scope Of The Writ Petition Was Very Narrow And The High Court Could Only Examine Whether The Competent Authority Had Considered The Objections In Accordance With The Directions Issued By The Apex Court And In Such A Writ Petition, The High Court Should Not Have Gone Into The Question As To Whether The Scheme Had Lapsed Under Sub-section (4) Of Section 100 Of The 1988 Act. The View Taken By The High Court That The Scheme Had Lapsed Was Wholly Uncalled For And Beyond The Scope Of The Writ Petition. The Judgment And Order Dated 23.7.2002 Was Set Aside By The Apex Court And The Writ Petitions Were Directed To Be Heard Afresh By The High Court In The Light Of The Directions Issued By The Apex Court In The Case Of Gajraj Singh (supra) After Impleading All Such Parties Who Have Been Granted Relief By The Competent Authority. The Apex Court Had Further Held That Where The Permits Were Granted On 11.2.1991 After The High Court Had Held On 16.3.1990 That The Scheme Had Lapsed Which, According To The Apex Court, Had Not Lapsed, The Permit Holders Are Not Entitled For Renewal Of Their Permits.
Pursuant To The Directions Given By The Apex Court, The Corporation Had Impleaded All The Parties Who Have Been Granted Relief By The Competent Authority By Issuing Notices In Two Newspapers, Namely Amar Ujala And Dainik Jagran. The Impleadment Applications By Some Of The Affected Parties Had Also Been Filed, Which Have Been Allowed.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.50932 Of 2002 :
In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.50932 Of 2002, Rajendra Kumar Claims To Hold A Valid Regular Stage Carriage Permit No.1250 In Respect Of Vehicle UP 12 D 7981 For Plying On Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandhala-Issopurtil Route. On This Route, 83 Regular Stage Carriage Permits Have Been Granted. In The Order Dated 3.11.2001 Passed By The Hearing Authority, The Petitioner Has Been Allowed To Operate Alongwith The Corporation. He Claims That The Respondents Are Liable To Comply With The Terms And Conditions Of The Scheme Modified By The Order Dated 3.11.2001 And To Take Action Under The Provisions Of Section 103 Of The 1988 Act By Cancelling The Permits And Restraining Their Operation On The Route Which Is Not Exempted In The Modified Scheme. Applications For Grant Of Temporary Permits Can Also Not Be Entertained.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.29646 Of 2006 :
In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.29646 Of 2006 The Facts Are That The Two Petitioners Are The Joint Permit Holders Of Permit No.54 In Respect Of Vehicle No.UP 12 D 9754 For The Route Saharanpur-Muzaffarnagar Via Deoband-Gagalheir-Bhagwanpur-Roorkee. The Permit Is Valid Till 5.5.2009. The Petitioners Claimed That The Approved Scheme Dated 29.5.1993 Has Been Modified By The Hearing Authority Vide Order Dated 3.11.2001 In Favour Of The Petitioners Including Other 53 Operators Of The Route, To Operate Jointly With The Corporation. They Are Party In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9332 Of 2002 Filed By The Corporation. According To Them, In View Of The Observations Made By The Apex Court In Its Judgment And Order Dated 29.11.2004 That The Scheme Dated 29.5.1993 Is An Approved Scheme And The Claim Of The Permit Holders Who Have Obtained Permits After 13.2.1986 Has Been Turned Down, The Transport Authorities Cancelled The Permits Granted After 13.2.1986 And Operation Of The Vehicles Of The Subsequent Grantees Have Been Stopped On The Route Covered By The Notification Dated 29.5.1993 Including The Route In Question. The Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government Of U.P., Lucknow, Vide Letter Dated 12.5.2006, Asked The Transport Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow To Consider The Grant Of Permits Under The Provisions Of Section 99(2) Of The 1988 Act. On Coming To Know About The Said Letter, The Petitioner On The Next Date, I.e., 13.5.2006, Moved An Application To The Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government Of U.P., Lucknow Seeking Withdrawal Of The Letter On The Ground That The Provisions Of Sub-section (2) Of Section 99 Of The 1988 Act Have Been Deleted Vide Notification Dated 3.9.2001. The Authorities Have Thereafter Proceeded To Consider The Grant Of Temporary Permits Which Action Is Under Challenge In This Sub Group Of Petitions.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.32370 Of 2006 :
In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.32370 Of 2006 Filed By 30 Petitioners, The Petitioners Claim That They Have Been Holding The Permits On The Route Known As Haridwar-BHEL-Roorkee-Mangalore- Deoband-Gangoh-Lakhoti And Allied Routes Since Prior To The Draft Scheme Dated 13.2.1986 Seeking Nationalisation Of The Route In Question Including 38 Other Routes. They Have Filed Their Objections Separately Within 30 Days From 13.2.1986. The Hearing Authority Modified The Scheme Dated 29.5.1993 In Favour Of The Petitioners And Allowed Them To Operate On The Route In Question Jointly With The Corporation. The Question Of Renewal Of Their Permits Came Up Before The Hon'ble Supreme Court And The Apex Court, Vide Interim Order Dated 20.9.2002, Passed In The Appeal Preferred By U.P.State Road Transport Corporation And Others, Had Directed That No Fresh Permit Shall Be Granted On The Route But That Order Shall Not Come In The Way For Renewal Of The Permits So Far As The Existing Operators Holding Valid Permits On The Date Of The Judgment Dated 23.7.2002 Passed By High Court Were Concerned. The State Transport Authority As Also The State Transport Appellate Tribunal Did Not Grant Renewal To The Permit Holders But Feeling Aggrieved They Filed A Writ Petition Before This Court. Being Unsuccessful, Some Of Them Preferred Civil Appeal Before The Apex Court And The Apex Court, Vide Judgment And Order Dated 2.1.2004, Had Clarified That If The Authorities/revisional Authorities Are Satisfied That The Permit Held By The Appellants Are Of A Date Prior To 13.2.1986 And They Have Continued To Operate Thereafter In Respect Of The Draft Scheme Having Been Published Then Their Prayer For Renewal Shall Be Entitled To Be Considered On Merits. The State Transport Authority, Vide Order Dated 9.6.2005 Had Resolved That The Decision On The Applications Moved For Renewal Of Permits On The Route Saharanpur Muzaffarnagar And Allied Routes Be Postponed Till The Decision Of This Court In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9332 Of 2002 And During The Pendency Of The Application, Temporary Permits Be Given To The Operators. 23 Operators Led By Birham Singh, Feeling Aggrieved By The Resolution Dated 9.6.2005, Preferred Revision Before The State Transport Appellate Tribunal Which, Vide Order Dated 29.8.2005, Had Set Aside The Resolution Dated 9.6.2005 And Renewed Their Permits For A Further Period Of Five Years. The Order Was Not Complied With Whereupon Birham Singh Preferred A Writ Petition Before This Court Which, Vide Judgment And Order Dated 12.12.2005, Had Directed The State Authorities To Comply With The Order Of The State Transport Appellate Tribunal Whereupon The Permits Of Birham Singh And 22 Others Have Been Renewed. However, The Permits Of Present Petitioners Have Not Been Renewed. The State Transport Authority Has Declined To Grant Renewal In Favour Of The Petitioners For A Period Of Five Years. Instead, Temporary Permits Have Been Given. The Petitioners Claimed That Their Permits Be Renewed For A Period Of Five Years As Grant Of Temporary Permits Every Time Which Is For A Short Period Of Four Months, Entails Heavy Expenditure In The Form Of Permit Fee. According To Them, The Fee For Temporary Permits For Four Month Is Rs.6,000/- Whereas The Fee For A Permanent Permit Is Only Rs.4,800/-. The Action Of The Authorities In Granting Temporary Permit To The Existing Permit Holders Who Are Saved By The Order Dated 3.11.2001 Passed By The Hearing Authority, Are Under Challenge.
Rival Submissions :
We Have Heard Sarvasri R.N.Singh, Learned Senior Counsel, Assisted By G.K.Malviya, Advocate, Navin Sinha, Learned Senior Counsel, Assisted By H.P.Dubey, Advocate, Samir Sharma, H.P.Dubey, A.D.Saunders, C.B.Pandey, And S.N.Jaiswal. Learned Counsel, And S.P.Kesarwani, Learned Standing Counsel, Appearing For The Respective Parties.
Sri Samir Sharma Who Appears On Behalf Of The Corporation, Submitted That The Hearing Authority Had Passed The Order Dated 3.11.2001 In Utter Disregard Of The Directions Given By The Apex Court In The Case Of Gajraj Singh And U.P.State Road Transport Corporation (supra). According To Him, The Said Order Is In The Teeth Of The Directions Given By The Apex Court. Under The Directions Of The Apex Court, The Hearing Authority Was Required To Decide Only Such Objections Which Have Been Filed On Or Before 15.3.1986, I.e., Within 30 Days Of The Notification Of The Draft Scheme Which Was Notified On 13.2.1986. The Hearing Authority Has Not Applied His Mind On The Issue As To Whether The Objection Which He Has Considered, Have Been Filed Within The Stipulated Period Or Not And, Therefore, The Entire Order Has Been Rendered Bad And Illegal In The Eyes Of Law. He Further Submitted That The Mode Of Filing Of Objections Have Been Provided In Detail Under Rule 5 Of The U.P.State Transport Services Development Rules, 1974 (hereinafter Referred To As "the Rules") Whereunder The Objections Are To Be Filed In The Form Of A Memorandum In Duplicate To Be Addressed To The Secretary, Transport Department, Government Of U.P. And A Copy Of The Same Has To Be Sent By The Objector To The General Manager Of The Corporation. The Objector Has Also To Indicate As To Whether He Desired To Be Heard In Person Or Not And Also Has To Submit A List Of Documents And Witnesses Alongwith Their Names And Addresses As Also A Brief Summary Of The Nature And Type Of Evidence Which Each Such Witness Is Likely To Give. According To Him, None Of The Objections Complied With The Provisions Of Rule 5 Of The Rules And, Therefore, They Could Not Have Been Considered.
Relying Upon The Provisions Of Sub-section (28-A) Of Section 2 Of The 1939 Act And Sub-section (38) Of Section 2 Of The 1988 Act Which Defines The Word "route" And Are In Pari Materia, He Submitted That Portion Of Route Nos.2 To 7, 18 And 19 Overlapped The Route No.1 And, Therefore, The Hearing Authority Could Not Have Permitted The Existing Permit Holders To Ply Their Vehicles On The Aforementioned Route Nos.2 To 7, 18 And 19. He Further Submitted That Under The 1959 Scheme Which Has Been Upheld By The Apex Court, Only Some Specified Permit Holders Have Been Allowed To Operate Whereas, In The Present Case, The Hearing Authority Without Naming The Permit Holders Or Giving Their Permit Numbers, Had Modified The Draft Scheme Notified On 13.2.1986 And Finally Published On 29.5.1993, By Holding That All The Existing Permit Holders Be Allowed To Operate On The Routes In Question Which, According To Him, Is Very Vague And Impermissible Under Law. According To Sri Sharma, In Respect Of The Route No.7 At The Time Of Notifying The Draft Scheme, There Were Only 53 Operators. However, While Modifying The Published Scheme, The Hearing Authority Had Permitted 72 Operators To Operate On The Said Route. According To Him, 19 Permits/operators Who Were Allowed After The Draft Scheme Had Been Issued, Was, Therefore, Not Permissible As It Amounted To Modification Of The Scheme. He Further Submitted That The Draft Scheme Had Been Published On 29.5.1993, Which Was Only Subject To Such Modification As May Be Directed By The Hearing Authority After Considering The Objections Filed Within 30 Days From The Date Of The Notification Of The Draft Scheme By The Operators. In This View Of The Matter, No Temporary Permit Could Have Been Issued Whatsoever Pending Decision By The Hearing Authority Or By This Court And All Such Temporary Permits Are Liable To Be Cancelled Being Void.
He Further Submitted That Smt. Rashmi Gupta And Smt. Anju Gupta Were Issued Permits After This Court On 16.3.1990 Had Held That The Draft Scheme Published On 13.2.1986 Had Lapsed By Operation Of Section 100(4) Of The 1988 Act. These Two Persons Are Not Entitled To Object To The Draft Scheme As Approved And Published On 29.5.1993 As They Did Not Have Any Right Under The Provisions Of The 1939 Act And The Rules To File Any Objection And, Therefore, Prayed That The Draft Scheme Notified On 13.2.1986 And Published On 29.5.1993 Be Upheld In Toto After Setting Aside The Order Of The Hearing Authority Dated 3.11.2001. In Support Of His Various Pleas, He Has Relied Upon The Following Decisions:-
(i) Jagdish Chandra Gupta And Others V. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow And Others, 1978 ALJ 1206;
(ii) M/s Adarsh Travels Bus Service And Another V. State Of U.P. And Others, AIR 1986 SC 319;
(iii) Gajraj Singh And Others V. State Of U.P. And Others, (2001) 5 SCC 762;
(iv) Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation V. Ashrafulla Khan And Others, (2002) 2 SCC 560; And
(v) U.P.State Road Transport Corporation V. State Of U.P. And Another, (2005) 1 SCC 444 (1st Case).

Sri R.N.Singh, Learned Senior Counsel For Smt. Rashmi Gupta And Smt. Anju Gupta, Submitted That Even If Only Two Or Three People Had Filed The Objections To The Draft Scheme Notified On 13.2.1986 And Published On 29.5.1993, The Entire Scheme Is Up For Review And The Hearing Authority Is Bound To Take Into Account The Subsequent Developments. According To Him, The Draft Scheme As Published On 29.5.1993 Did Affect The Petitioners' Right To Operate On The Routes On Which They Had Been Granted Permit In The Year 1992 And They Were Well Within Their Right To File The Objections. He Assailed The Order Dated 3.11.2001 Passed By The Hearing Authority On The Ground That The Said Order Does Not Assign Any Reason As To Why Only The Existing Operators Should Be Allowed To Operate Alongwith The Corporation On The Route Nos.2 To 39. Further, The Situation As It Existed On The Date When The Hearing Authority Was Going To Pass The Order Or, In Any Event, When He Proceeded To Decide The Objections, Ought To Have Been Taken Into Consideration. According To Him, Under The Scheme Of The 1939 Act And The 1988 Act Any Person Is Entitled To File Objections And, Therefore, The Hearing Authority Ought To Have Considered The Objections Filed By The Petitioners. He Further Submitted That The Petitioners Would Have Been Satisfied And Would Have No Grievance If The Original Scheme As Notified On 13.2.1986 And Published On 29.5.1993 Remained In Tact Without Any Modifications But If Some Persons Are Allowed To Operate By Including The Existing Operators When The Draft Scheme Was Notified On 13.2.1986 And Leaving Out The Persons Who Were Granted Permit After 16.3.1990, Like The Present Petitioners, The Order Of The Hearing Authority Has Resulted In Hostile Discrimination And Is Violative Of Article 14 Of The Constitution. Such Order Cannot Withstand The Test Of Judicial Scrutiny. He Further Submitted That The Hearing Authority Ought To Have Taken Into Account The Efficiency In Service, The Adequate Number Of Vehicles And The Interest Of The Travelling Public While Deciding The Objections On The Scheme In Question. No Such Finding Has Been Recorded By The Hearing Authority. He Further Submitted That As The Scheme Was Pending Since Long And The Situation And Ground Realities Have Changed Drastically, The Scheme Itself Is Liable To Be Quashed. It Does Not Mean That The State Government Cannot Notify A Fresh Scheme. Sofaras The Writ Petitions Filed By The Existing Operators Challenging The Issue Of Temporary Permits To Other Various Persons Is Concerned, Sri Singh Submitted That These Petitioners Being The Rival Operators, They Have No Locus Standi Under Law To Challenge The Grant Of Permits. In Support Of His Various Pleas, He Has Relied Upon The Following Decisions:-
(i) Mohinder Singh Gill And Another V. The Chief Electin Commissioner, New Delhi And Others, AIR 1978 SC 851;
(ii) State Of Kerala V. Kumari T.P.Roshana And Others, AIR 1979 SC 765;
(iii) Sampatti Lal V. The Secretary, Board Of High School And Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad And Others, 1983 (1) UPLBEC 750;
(iv) Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh V. Sanjay Gulati And Others, AIR 1983 SC 580;
(v) Yogeshwar Jaiswal, Etc. V. State Transport Appellate Tribunal And Others, AIR 1985 SC 516;
(vi) Phool Chand Gupta V. Regional Transport Authority, Ujjain And Others, AIR 1986 SC 119;
(vii) Onkar Singh And Others V. Regional Transport Authority, Agra And Others, AIR 1986 SC 1719; And
(viii) Anwar V. First Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr And Others, (1986) 4 SCC 21.

Sri S.P.Kesarwani, Learned Standing Counsel, Appearing For The State Respondents, Submitted That The Corporation Had Filed Its Reply To The Objections Preferred By Various Objectors. No Such Objection Was Raised By The Corporation Regarding The Factum Of Non-filing Of Objections By Any Particular Operator. Had Such A Plea Been Raised, The Hearing Authority Would Have Looked Into The Matter And Given A Finding. There Was No Factual Foundation Before The Hearing Authority Regarding Non-filing Of The Objections. He Submitted That It Is True That The Original Objections Which Were Filed By The Existing Operators, Got Misplaced Somewhere In The Shifting Of The Record. However, A List Of Objectors Was On Record. The Hearing Authority After Publishing A General Notice In The Newspapers, Invited All Such Objectors To File A Copy Of The Objections Alongwith Its Proof For Being Considered. Various Persons Responded To The Public Notice And Supplied Copies Of The Objections Alongwith The Proof Of Having Filed Them Within The Prescribed Period Of 30 Days. After Scrutinising The Same, The Hearing Authority On Being Satisfied That They Were Filed Within Time, Had Considered Them Objectively For Each And Every Route And Had Passed The Order Which Does Not Suffer From Any Legal Infirmity. He Further Submitted That Smt. Rashmi Gupta And Smt. Anju Gupta Had Not Filed Their Objections Within 30 Days Of The Notification Of The Draft Scheme And, Therefore, Their Objections Were Not Liable To Be Considered In Terms Of The Direction Given By The Apex Court In The Case Of Gajraj Singh And U.P.State Road Transport Corporation (1st Case) (supra). They Cannot Claim Any Advantage Of Holding A Permit Which Was Issued In The Year 1992. The Entire Matter Was To Be Governed By The Provisions Of The 1939 Act And No Advantage Can Be Taken From The Provision Of Section 100 Of The 1988 Act. According To Him, When The Matter Touches A Private Right Of The Party Then Rule Of Applicability To All Concerned Is Not Applicable And The Benefit Of The Judgment/order Cannot Be Taken. He Further Submitted That The 1939 Act Having Been Repealed And The 1988 Act Having Come Into Force With Effect From 1.4.1989, In View Of Sub-section (3) Of Section 100 Of The 1988 Act, The Scheme Relating To Proposal As Approved Or Modified By The Hearing Authority, Is Required To Be Published In The Official Gazette And At Least In One Newspaper In The Regional Language Circulated In The Area Or The Route Covered By Such Scheme. Only Thereafter, It Becomes The Approved Scheme. The Scheme Published On 29.5.1993 Cannot Be Said To Be The Approved Scheme For The Purpose Of The 1988 Act And, Therefore, The State Authorities Were Perfectly Justified In Issuing Temporary Permits For The Routes In Question Till The Finalisation Of The Scheme By The Hearing Authority And During The Pendency Of The Matter Before This Court. In Support Of His Various Pleas, He Has Relied Upon The Decision Of The Apex Court In The Case Of Gajraj Singh (supra).
Sri Navin Sinha, Learned Senior Counsel, Appearing For Some Of The Existing Operators, Who Have Been Saved By The Scheme As Modified By The Hearing Authority, Submitted That Under Section 68-D Of The 1939 Act General Public Has Not Been Given The Right To File Objections To A Notified Scheme. It Gave The Right To File Objection Only To Three Classes Of Persons, Namely (i) Any Person Already Providing Transport Facilities By Any Means Along Or Near The Area Or Route Proposed To Be Covered By The Scheme; (ii) Any Association Representing Persons Interested In The Provision Of Road Transport Facilities Recognised In This Behalf By The State Government; And (iii) Any Local Authority Or Police Authority Within Whose Jurisdiction Any Part Of The Area Or Route Proposed To Be Covered By The Scheme Lies. According To Him, The Operators Who Have Got Permit After 13.2.1986 Were Not Entitled To File Objections. Only The Existing Operators Who Had A Valid Permit Granted Before 13.2.1986, Have Been Given The Right To File Objections And That Too Within 30 Days From The Date Of Publication Of The Draft Scheme. Smt. Rashmi Gupta And Smt. Anju Gupta Who Were Granted Permit In The Year 1992, After This Court On 16.3.19990 Had Held That The Draft Scheme Had Lapsed, Were Not Entitled To File Any Objections Nor Can They Raise Any Objection To The Order Passed By The Hearing Authority Modifying The Scheme Published On 29.5.1993. The Hearing Authority Has Decided The Objections Filed By The Existing Operators After Being Satisfied That They Had Filed Their Objections Within The Specified Time After Checking Their Names From The List Of Objectors Available On Record. According To Him, The Hearing Authority Had Issued Notices On 26.4.1990 To Individual Objectors. Thus, It Cannot Be Presumed That No Objections Were Filed To The Scheme Notified On 13.2.1986. However, The Proceedings Were Dropped On 28.5.1990 After This Court Had Held That The Scheme Had Lapsed. The Matter Was Taken Up Before The Apex Court And Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Apex Court, A General Notice Was Published On 6.8.1991 In Hindi Newspaper Dainik Jagran Containing The Names Of The Objectors Who Had Filed Their Objections Before The Hearing Authority Against The Draft Scheme Dated 13.2.1986 So That The Objectors May Have Their Say Before The Apex Court. This Publication Was Made Pursuant To The Directions Given By The Apex Court. The Apex Court, Vide Judgment And Order Dated 31.3.1992, Passed In Ram Krishna Verma (supra) Directed The State Government To Publish The Finalised Scheme Which Was Published On 29.5.1993. It Included The 38 Routes In Question. In The Case Of Gajraj Singh, The Apex Court Has Not Quashed The Notification Dated 29.5.1993 Which Had Notified The Draft Scheme Dated 13.2.1986, As Approved Scheme. However, It Only Directed That If All The Objections Or Any Of Them Are Allowed, The Draft Scheme Shall Meet The Fate Consistently With The Decision On The Objections And Approved Scheme As Notified On 29.5.1993 Shall Be Accordingly Modified Or Annulled Insofar As The Routes Specified In Route Nos.2 To 39 Are Concerned And In The Event Of The Objections Being Dismissed, The Approved Scheme Notified On 29.5.1993 Shall Continue To Remain In Operation. After The Decision Of The Apex Court In The Case Of Gajraj Singh (supra), The Hearing Authority Again Published The Notice On 8.6.2001 And Even Then The Corporation Did Not Raise Any Objection Regarding The Non-filing Of Objections By Any Particular Objector. The Hearing Authority After Giving An Opportunity Of Hearing To The Affected Parties Had Decided The Objections Vide Order Dated 3.11.2001 Modifying The Scheme And Permitting The Existing Operator To Operate On The Routes In Question. According To Him, There Is No Overlapping Of The Routes. The Main Route Is Route Nos.7 And 8. The Allied Route Of Route No.7 Is The Route Nos.9, 10, 14 And 15 Whereas In Respect Of Route No.8, The Allied Routes Are The Route Nos.11 And 12. The Operators Had Been Permitted To Operate On The Allied Routes Looking To The Requirement Of The Travelling Public And Economic Viability. Sri Sinha Further Submitted That The Hearing Authority While Modifying The Scheme, Had Permitted 72 Operators To Operate Which Does Not Amount To Modification Of The Notified Scheme. According To Him, A Division Bench Of This Court In The Case Of Sardar Surendra Singh V. State Of U.P. And Others, AIR 1966 Allahabad 455, Had Held That Where Certain Route Had Been Nationalised And The Permit Holders On The Route Were Offered Permit For An Alternate Route, Which Offer Was Accepted And They Were Allowed To Ply Their Stage Carriages Over A Portion Of Another Route, Which Was Already Nationalised, Was Only An Indirect Effect Or The Incidental Result Of The Order Passed Under Section 68-G(2) Of The 1939 Act And It Cannot Be Said There Had Been In Fact And In The Eyes Of Law Any Modification Of The Scheme. The Grant Of Additional Permit Does Not Modify The Scheme. The Objections Raised By The Corporation Is Vague And Does Not Touch Upon The Objections Preferred By The Existing Operators At All On Merits. He Further Submitted That Smt. Rashmi Gupta And Smt. Anju Gupta Are Not Similarly Situated As That Of The Existing Operators As They Had Been Granted Permit After The Scheme Had Lapsed.
So Far As The Objection Regarding The Maintainability Of The Writ Petition Challenging The Grant/issue Of Temporary Permits To Various Persons By Existing Permit Holders Is Concerned, Sri Sinha Submitted That The Petitioners Are Well Within Their Right To Challenge Such A Grant As It Is Wholly In Violation Of The Provisions Of The 1939 Act Under Which The Draft Scheme Has Been Modified. According To Him, In View Of The Decision Of The Apex Court In The Case Of Sai Chalchitra V. Commissioner, Meerut Mandal And Others, (2005) 3 SCC 683, The Present Writ Petitions At The Instance Of Persons Even If They Are Rival Operators, Are Maintainable.
Sri A.D.Saunders, Sri H.P.Dubey And Sri C.B.Pandey While Adopting The Arguments Advanced By Sri Navin Sinha, Submitted That The Plea Taken By The Corporation That The Objections Were Not Filed By Their Clients, Have No Legs To Stand As No Such Plea Was Taken By The Corporation Before The Hearing Authority. Sri C.B.Pandey Referred To The Order Sheet Of The Hearing Authority Forming Part Of Annexure CA 10 To The Counter Affidavit Filed By Sri Avnish Kumar (who Has Been Impleaded Vide Order Dated 10.5.2006 Passed In Civil Misc. Application No.78079 Of 2006), Which Is A Copy Of The Affidavit Filed By Sri Surendra Bahadur Singh, Special Secretary, Department Of Transport, U.P.Secretariat, Lucknow, U.P. In Special Leave Petition (C) No.18520 Of 1999, Gajraj Singh And Others V. State Of U.P. And Others, To Press Home The Point That The Corporation Had Taken Time On 21.9.1992 From The Hearing Authority For Filing Counter Affidavit Against Copies Of The Affidavits Filed By The Operators. On Subsequent Dates Also, The Corporation Had Been Taking Time To File Objections In The Shape Of Counter Affidavit To The Objections Already Preferred By The Operators. He Also Referred To The Short Counter Affidavit Of Sri R.S.Misra, Deputy Secretary (Transport), Government Of U.P., Lucknow In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36662 Of 1999, Smt. Munni Devi V. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut Through Its Chairman And Others, A Copy Of Which Has Been Filed As Annexure CA 6 To The Counter Affidavit Filed By Sri Avnish Kumar, Wherein, In Paragraph 6, It Has Been Stated That After The Approval Of The Scheme Since The Objections Against The Proposed Scheme Dated 13.2.1986 Was Already Pending Before The Hearing Authority, The Matter Was Taken Up On 24.7.1993 For Consigning To Record. Sri Pandey Invited The Attention Of The Court To The Averments Made In Paragraph 3H In The Counter Affidavit Filed By Sri R.P.Jain, General Manager (Operations), U.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow, In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.Nil Of 1993, Rasheed Ahmad Khan And Others V. State Of U.P. And Others, A Copy Of Which Has Been Filed As Annexure CA 7 To The Counter Affidavit Of Sri Avnish Kumar Wherein It Has Been Admitted That Against The Scheme Dated 13.2.1986 The Existing Operators Had Filed Their Objections And The Matter Remained Pending. Sri C.B.Pandey, Thus, Submitted That The Plea That No Objections Were Filed By The Existing Operators, Appears To Be An After Thought And Have Been Raised With Some Oblique Purpose.
Sri H.P.Dubey Further Submitted That The Routes Are Not Overlapping And There Are Three Yamuna Bridges. There Cannot Be Overlapping Of The Route No.1.
Sri S.N.Jaiswal Adopted The Arguments Of Sri R.N.Singh, Learned Senior Counsel.
In Reply, Sri Samir Sharma, Learned Counsel, Submitted That The Plea Regarding Filing Of Objections Within 30 Days Was Not Raised By The Corporation Till The Decision Of The Apex Court In The Case Of Gajraj Singh Wherein The Apex Court Had Held That Only Those Objections Which Had Been Filed Within 30 Days Of The Publication Of The Draft Scheme Have To Be Decided And, Therefore, It Was Open To The Corporation To Raise The Objections At This Stage. He Further Submitted That The Ratio Laid Down By This Court In The Case Of Sardar Surendra Singh (supra) Is No Longer A Good Law In View Of The Amendment Made In The 1939 Act By Which The "route" Was Defined By Insertion Of Sub-section (28-A) Of Section 2 Of The 1939 Act. Moreover, This Decision Does Not Take Into Account Overlapping Routes And Permit Cannot Be Issued On Any Overlapping Route.
Sri R.N.Singh, Learned Senior Counsel, Submitted That The Provisions Of Section 68C Of The 1939 Act Cannot Restrict The Right Of The Petitioners To File Their Objections Which Ought To Have Been Taken Into Consideration.
Discussions :
We Have Given Our Anxious Consideration To The Various Pleas Raised By The Learned Counsel For The Parties.
Preliminary Objection - Locus Standi Of Rival Operators :
Before Going Into The Merits Of The Matter, We Would Like To Deal With The Preliminary Objection Raised By Sri R.N.Singh, Learned Senior Counsel, Regarding Maintainability Of The Writ Petitions Wherein The Existing Permit Holders Under The Modified Scheme Have Challenged The Grant/issue Of Temporary Permits To Various Persons. It Is No Doubt True That The Existing Permit Holders Under The Modified Scheme Are Rival Operators And, Therefore, They Are Trade Rivals. In The Writ Petitions Filed By Them, They Have Challenged The Grant/issue Of Temporary Permits To Various Persons As Being In Violation Of The Provisions Of The 1939 Act And The 1988 Act. The Apex Court In The Case Of Sai Chalchitra (supra) Has Held As Follows:-
"4. Learned Single Judge, Before Whom The Writ Petition Came Up For Hearing, Dismissed The Writ Petition On The Locus Standi Of The Appellant To File The Writ Petition Without Going Into The Other Questions Of Law. It Was Observed That The Appellant Could Not Raise A Grievance Against His Rival In The Trade Particularly When The Rival In Trade, As In The Instant Case, Was Exhibiting Cinematograph Films Much Before The Appellant Was Granted The Licence. It Was Held That The Appellant Had Not Been Denied Or Deprived Of Its Legal Right To Exhibit The Films And, Therefore, He Had Not Sustained Any Legally Protected Interest. It Was Also Observed That The Order Of The Commissioner Did Not Operate As A Decision Against The Appellant As The Appellant Had Not Suffered Any Legal Wrong. The Writ Petition Filed By The Appellant Was Held Not To Be Maintainable.

5. After Hearing The Counsel For The Parties, We Are Of The Opinion That The High Court Clearly Erred In Dismissing The Writ Petition Filed By The Appellant On The Ground Of Locus Standi. The Appellant Being In The Same Trade As Respondent No.3 Has A Right To Seek The Cancellation Of The Licence Granted To Respondent No.3 Being In Violation Of The Act And The Rules."
(underlined By Us)

The Apex Court, In The Aforesaid Case, Has Clearly Held That Even A Trade Rival (being In The Same Trade) Has A Right To Seek Cancellation Of The Licence Granted To Another Person Being In Violation Of The Act And The Rules. In The Present Case, We Find That The Bus Operators Who Have Been Included In The Modified Scheme, Have Challenged The Grant Of Temporary Permits On The Ground Of Being In Violation Of The Act And The Rules. Thus, They Have The Locus Standi To Maintain The Present Writ Petitions.
Statutory Provisions :
For A Proper Adjudication Of The Controversy Involved In These Petitions, It Will Be Apt To Reproduce Below The Relevant Provisions Of The 1939 Act, The 1988 Act And The Rules:
Motor Vehciles Act, 1939 :
2. Definitions. In This Act, Unless There Is Anything Repugnant In The Subject Or Context, -
... ... ...
28-A 'route' Means A Line Of Travel Which Specifies The Highway Which May Be Traversed By A Motor Vehicle Between One Terminus And Another'.

68B. Chapter IV-A To Override Chapter IV And Other Laws. - The Provisions Of This Chapter And The Rules And Orders Made Thereunder Shall Have Effect Notwithstanding Anything Inconsistent Therewith Contained In Chapter IV Of This Act Or Any Other Law For The Time Being In Force Or In Any Instrument Having Effect By Virtue Of Any Such Law.

68C. Preparation And Publication Of Scheme Of Road Transport Service Of A State Transport Undertaking. - Where Any State Transport Undertaking Is Of Opinion That For The Purpose Of Providing An Efficient, Adequate, Economical And Properly Co-ordinated Road Transport Service, It Is Necessary In The Public Interest That Road Transport Services In General Or Any Particular Class Of Such Service In Relation To Any Area Or Route Or Portion Thereof Should Be Run And Operated By The State Transport Undertaking, Whether To The Exclusion, Complete Or Partial, Of Other Persons Or Otherwise, The State Transport Undertaking May Prepare A Scheme Giving Particulars Of The Nature Of The Services Proposed To Be Rendered, The Area Or Route Proposed To Be Covered And Such Other Particulars Respecting Thereto As May Be Prescribed, And Shall Cause Every Such Scheme To Be Published In The Official Gazette And Also In Such Other Manner As The State Government May Direct.

68D. Objection To The Scheme
(1) On The Publication Of Any Scheme In The Official Gazette And Not Less Than One Newspaper In Regional Language Circulating In The Area Or Route Which Is Proposed To Be Covered By Such Scheme, -
(i) Any Person Already Providing Transport Facilities By Any Means Along Or Near The Area Or Route Proposed To Be Covered By The Scheme;
(ii) Any Association Representing Persons Interested In The Provision Of Road Transport Facilities Recognised In This Behalf By The State Government; And
(iii) Any Local Authority Or Police Authority Within Whose Jurisdiction Any Part Of The Area Or Route Proposed To Be Covered By The Scheme Lies
may Within 30 Days From The Date Of Its Publication In The Official Gazette, File Objections To It Before The State Government.
(2) The State Government May, After Considering The Objections And After Giving An Opportunity To The Objector Or His Representatives And The Representatives Of The State Transport Undertaking To Be Heard In The Matter If They So Desire, Approve Or Modify The Scheme.
(3) The Scheme As Approved Or Modified Under Sub-section (2) Shall Then Be Published In The Official Gazette By The State Government And The Same Shall Thereupon Become Final And Shall Be Called The Approved Scheme And The Area Or Route To Which It Relates Shall Be Called The Notified Area Or Notified Route:
Provided That No Such Scheme Which Relates To Any Inter-State Route Shall Be Deemed To Be An Approved Scheme Unless It Has Been Published In The Official Gazette With The Previous Approval Of The Central Government.

68E Cancellation Or Modification Of Scheme. -
(1) Any Scheme Published Under Sub-section (3) Of Section 68D May At Any Time Be Cancelled Or Modified By The State Transport Undertaking And The Procedure Laid Down In Section 68C And Section Of 68D Shall, So Far As It Can Be Made Applicable, Be Followed In Every Case Where The Scheme Is Proposed To Be Cancelled Or Modified As If The Proposal Were A Separate Scheme:
Provided That The State Transport Undertaking May, With The Previous Approval Of The State Government, Modify Without Following The Procedure Laid Down In Section 68C And Section 68D, Any Such Scheme Relating To Any Route Or Area In Respect Of Which The Road Transport Services Are Run And Operated By The State Transport Undertaking To The Complete Exclusion Of Other Persons In Respect Of The Following Matters, Namely:-
(a) Increase In The Number Of Vehicles Or The Number Of Trips;
(b) Change In The Type Of Vehicles Without Reducing The Seating Capacity ;
(c) Extension Of The Route Or Area, Without Reducing The Frequency Of The Service ; Or
(d) Alteration Of The Time-table Without Reducing The Frequency Of The Service.
(2) Notwithstanding Anything Contained In Sub-section (1), The State Government May, At Any Time, If It Considers Necessary In The Public Interest So To Do, Modify Any Scheme Published Under Sub-section (3) Of Section 68D, After Giving,-
(i) The State Transport Undertaking, And
(ii) Any Other Person Who, In The Opinion Of The State Government, Is Likely To Be Affected By The Proposed Modification,
an Opportunity Of Being Heard In Respect Of The Proposed Modification.

68F. Issue Of Permits To State Transport Undertakings. (1) Where, In Pursuance Of An Approved Scheme, Any State Transport Undertaking Applies In Such Manner As May Be Prescribed By The State Government In This Behalf For A Stage Carriage Permit Or A Public Carrier's Permit Or A Contract Carriage Permit In Respect Of A Notified Area Or Notified Route, The State Transport Authority In Any Case Where The Said Area Or Route Lies In More Than One Region And The Regional Transport Authority In Any Other Case Shall Issue Such Permit To The State Transport Undertaking, Notwithstanding Anything To The Contrary Contained In Chapter IV.
(1-A) Where Any Scheme Has Been Published By A State Transport Undertaking Under Section 68C That Undertaking May Apply For A Temporary Permit, In Respect Of Any Area Or Route Or Portion Thereof Specified In The Said Scheme, For The Period Intervening Between The Date Of Publication Of The Scheme And The Date Of Publication Of The Approved Or Modified Scheme, And Where Such Application Is Made, The State Transport Authority Or The Regional Transport Authority As The Case May Be, Shall, If It Is Satisfied That It Is Necessary To Increase, In The Public Interest, The Number Of Vehicles Operating In Such Area Or Route Or Portion Thereof, Issue The Temporary Permit Prayed For By The State Transport Undertaking.
(1-B) A Temporary Permit Issued In Pursuance Of The Provisions Of Sub-section (1A) Shall Be Effective,-
(i) If The Scheme Is Published Under Sub-section (3) Of Section 68D, Until The Grant Of The Permit To The State Transport Undertaking Under Sub-section (1), Or
(ii) It The Scheme Is Not Published Under Sub-section (3) Of Section 68D, Until The Expiration Of The One Week From The Date On Which The Order Under Subsection (2) Of Section 68D Is Made.
(1-C) If No Application For A Temporary Permit Is Made Under Sub-section (1-A), The State Transport Authority Or The Regional Transport Authority, As The Case May Be, May Grant, Subject To Such Conditions As It May Think Fit, Temporary Permit To Any Person In Respect Of The Area Or Route Or Portion Thereof Specified In The Scheme And The Permit So Granted Shall Cease To Be Effective On The Issue Of A Permit To The State Transport Undertaking In Respect Of That Area Or Route Or Portion Thereof.
(1-D) Save As Otherwise Provided In Sub-section (1-A) Or Sub-section (1-C), No Permit Shall Be Granted Or Renewed During The Period Intervening Between The Date Of Publication, Under Section 68-C Of Any Scheme And The Date Of Publication Of The Approved Or Modified Scheme, In Favour Of Any Person For Any Class Of Road Transport Service In Relation To An Area Or Route Or Portion Thereof Covered By Such Scheme:
Provided That Where The Period Of Operation Of A Permit In Relation To Any Area, Route Or Portion Thereof Specified In A Scheme Published Under Section 68-C Expires After Such Publication, Such Permit May Be Renewed For A Limited Period, But The Permit So Renewed Shall Cease To Be Effective On The Publication Of The Scheme Under Sub-section (3) Of Section 68-D.
(l-E) Where A State Transport Undertaking Applies For Renewal Of A Permit Within The Period Specified In Sub-section (2A) Of Section 58, The State Transport Authority Or, As The Case May Be, The Regional Transport Authority, Shall, Renew Such Permit, Notwithstanding Anything To The Contrary Contained In Chapter IV.
(2) For The Purpose Of Giving Effect To The Approved Scheme In Respect Of A Notified Area Or Notified Route, The State Transport Authority Or As The Case May Be, The Regional Transport Authority Concerned May, By Order,-
(a) Refuse To Entertain Any Application For The Grant Or Renewal Of Any Other Permit Or Reject Any Such Application As May Be Pending;
(b) Cancel Any Existing Permit ;
(c) Modify The Terms Of Any Existing Permit So As To-
(i) Render The Permit Ineffective Beyond A Specified Date ;
(ii) Reduce The Number Of Vehicles Authorised To Be Used Under The Permit ;
(iii) Curtail The Area Or Route Covered By The Permit So Far As Such Permit Relates To The Notified Area Or Notified Route.
(3) For The Removal Of Doubts, It Is Hereby Declared That No
appeal Shall Lie Against Any Action Taken, Or Order Passed, By The State Transport Authority Or Any Regional Transport Authority Under Sub-section (1) Or Sub-section (2).

68FF. Restriction On Grant Of Permits In Respect Of A Notified Area Or Notified Route. Where A Scheme Has Been Published Under Sub-section (3) Of Section 68D In Respect Of Any Notified Area Or Notified Route, The State Transport Authority Or The Regional Transport Authority, As The Case May Be, Shall Not Grant Any Permit Except In Accordance With The Provisions Of The Scheme;
Provided That Where No Application For A Permit Has Been Made An By The State Transport Undertaking In Respect Of Any Notified Area Or Notified Route In Pursuance Of An Approved Scheme, The State Transport Authority Or The Regional Transport Authority, As The Case May Be, May Grant Temporary Permits To Any Person In Respect Of Such
notified Area Or Notified Route Subject To The Condition That Such Permit Shall Cease To Be Effective On The Issue Of A Permit To The State Transport Undertaking In Respect Of That Area Or Route.

68-G Principles And Method Of Determining Compensation. - (1) Where, In Exercise Of The Powers Conferred By Clause (b) Or Clause (c) Of Sub-section (2) Of Section 68-F, Any Existing Permit Is Cancelled Or The Terms Thereof Are Modified, There Shall Be Paid By The State Transport Undertaking To The Holder Of The Permit Compensation The Amount Of Which Shall Be Determined In Accordance With The Provisions Of Sub-section (4) Or Sub-section (5), As The Case May Be.

(2) Notwithstanding Anything Contained In Sub-section (1), No Compensation Shall Be Payable On Account Of The Cancellation Of Any Existing Permit Or Any Modification Of The Terms Thereof, When A Permit For An Alternative Route Or Area In Lieu Thereof Has Been Offered By The State Transport Authority Or The Regional Transport Authority, As The Case May Be And Accepted By The Holder Of The Permit.

(3) For The Removal Of Doubts, It Is Hereby Declared That No Compensation Shall Be Payable On Account Of The Refusal To Renew A Permit Under Clause (a) Of Sub-section (2) Of Section 68-F.

(4) Where, In Exercise Of The Powers Conferred By Clause (b) Or Sub-clause (i) Or Sub-clause (ii) Of Clause (c) Of Sub-section (2) Of Section 68-F, Any Existing Permit Is Cancelled Or The Terms Thereof Are Modified So As To Prevent The Holder Of The Permit From Using Any Vehicle Authorised To Be Used Thereunder For The Full Period For Which The Permit Would Otherwise Have Been Effective, The Compensation Payable To The Holder Of The Permit For Each Vehicle Affected By Such Cancellation Or Modification Shall Be Computed As Follows:-
(a) For Every Complete Month Or Part Of A Month Exceeding Fifteen Days Of The Unexpired Period Of The Permit : Two Hundred Rupees;
(b) For Part Of A Month Not Exceeding Fifteen Days Of The Unexpired Period Of The Permit : One Hundred Rupees:
Provided That The Amount Of Compensation Shall, In No Case, Be Less Than Four Hundred Rupees.
(5) Where, In Exercise Of The Powers Conferred By Sub-clause (iii) Of Clause (c) Of Sub-section (2) Of Section 68-F, The Terms Of An Existing Permit Are Modified So As To Curtail The Area Or Route Of Any Vehicle Authorised To Be Used Thereunder, The Compensation Payable To The Holder Of The Permit On Account Of Such Curtailment Shall Be An Amount Computed In Accordance With The Following Formula, Namely:-
Y X A
R
Explanation.-In This Formula,-
(i) "Y" Means The Length Or Area By Which The Route Or Area Covered By The Permit Is Curtailed;

(ii) "A" Means The Amount Computed In Accordance With Sub-section (4);
(iii) "R" Means The Total Length Of The Route Or The Total Area Covered By The Permit.
68-H. Payment Of Compensation. - The Amount Of Compensation Payable Under Section 68-G Shall Be Paid By The State Transport Undertaking To The Person Or Persons Entitled Thereto Within One Month From The Date On Which The Cancellation Or Modification Of The Permit Becomes Effective:
Provided That Where The State Transport Undertaking Fails To Make The Payment Within The Said Period Of One Month, It Shall Pay Interest At The Rate Of 3 ?? Per Cent Per Annum From The Date On Which It Falls Due.

Motor Vehciles Act, 1988 :
2. Definitions. In This Act, Unless The Context Otherwise Requires,-
(38) "route" Means A Line Of Travel Which Specifies The Highway Which May Be Traversed By A Motor Vehicle Between One Terminus And Another;

98. Chapter To Override Chapter V And Other Laws.- The Provisions Of This Chapter And The Rules And Orders Made Thereunder Shall Have Effect Notwithstanding Anything Inconsistent Therewith Contained In Chapter V Or In Any Other Law For The Time Being In Force Or In Any Instrument Having Effect By Virtue Of Any Such Law.

99. Preparation And Publication Of Proposal Regarding Road Transport Service Of A State Transport Undertaking. (1) Where Any State Government Is Of Opinion That For The Purpose Of Providing An Efficient, Adequate, Economical And Properly Co-ordinated Road Transport Service, It Is Necessary In The Public Interest That Road Transport Services In General Or Any Particular Class Of Such Service In Relation To Any Area Or Route Or Portion Thereof Should Be Run And Operated By The State Transport Undertaking, Whether To The Exclusion, Complete Or Partial, Of Other Persons Or Otherwise, The State Government May Formulate A Proposal Regarding A Scheme Giving Particulars Of The Nature Of The Services Proposed To Be Rendered, The Area Or Route Proposed To Be Covered And Other Relevant Particulars Respecting Thereto And Shall Publish Such Proposal In The Official Gazette Of The State Formulating Such Proposal And In Not Less Than One Newspaper In The Regional Language Circulating In The Area Or Route Proposed To Be Covered By Such Scheme And Also In Such Other Manner As The State Government Formulating Such Proposal Deem Fit.
(2) Notwithstanding Anything Contained In Sub-section (1), When A Proposal Is Published Under That Sub-section, Then From The Date Of Publication Of Such Proposal, No Permit Shall Be Granted To Any Person, Except A Temporary Permit During The Pendency Of The Proposal And Such Temporary Permit Shall Be Valid Only For A Period Of One Year From The Date Of Its Issue Or Till The Date Of Final Publication Of The Scheme Under Section 100, Whichever Is Earlier.

100. Objection To The Proposal.
(1) On The Publication Of Any Proposal Regarding A Scheme In The Official Gazette And In Not Less Than One Newspaper In The Regional Language Circulating In The Area Or Route Which Is To Be Covered By Such Proposal Any Person May, Within Thirty Days From The Date Of Its Publication In The Official Gazette, File Objections To It Before The State Government.
(2) The State Government May, After Considering The Objections And After Giving An Opportunity To The Objector Or His Representatives And The Representatives Of The State Transport Undertaking To Be Heard In The Matter, If They So Desire, Approve Or Modify Such Proposal.
(3) The Scheme Relating To The Proposal As Approved Or Modified Under Subsection (2) Shall Then Be Published In The Official Gazette By The State Government Making Such Scheme And In Not Less Than One Newspaper In The Regional Language Circulating In The Area Or Route Covered By Such Scheme And The Same Shall Thereupon Become Final On The Date Of Its Publication In The Official Gazette And Shall Be Called The Approved Scheme And The Area Or Route For Which It Relates Shall Be Called The Notified Area Or Notified Route:
Provided That No Such Scheme Which Relates To Any Inter-State Route Shall Be Deemed To Be An Approved Scheme Unless It Has The Previous Approval Of The Central Government.
(4) Notwithstanding Anything Contained In This Section, Where A Scheme Is Not Published As An Approved Scheme Under Sub-section (3) In The Official Gazette Within A Period Of One Year From The Date Of Publication Of The Proposal Regarding The Scheme In The Official Gazette Under Sub-section (1), The Proposal Shall Be Deemed To Have Lapsed.
Explanation.-In Computing The Period Of One Year Referred To In This Sub- Section, Any Period Or Periods During Which The Publication Of The Approved Scheme Under Sub-section (3) Was Held Up On Account Of Any Stay Or Injunction By The Order Of Any Court Shall Be Excluded.

101. Operation Of Additional Services By A State Transport Undertaking In Certain Circumstances.- Notwithstanding Anything Contained In Section 87, A State Transport Undertaking May, In The Public Interest Operate Additional Services For The Conveyance Of The Passengers On Special Occasions Such As To And From Fairs And Religious Gatherings:
Provided That The State Transport Undertaking Shall Inform About The Operation Of Such Additional Services To The Concerned Transport Authority Without Delay.

102. Cancellation Or Modification Of Scheme.
(1) The State Government May, At Any Time, If It Considers Necessary, In The Public Interest So To Do, Modify Any Approved Scheme After Giving-
(i) The State Transport Undertaking; And
(ii) Any Other Person Who, In The Opinion Of The State Government, Is Likely To Be Affected By The Proposed Modification,
an Opportunity Of Being Heard In Respect Of The Proposed Modification.
(2) The State Government Shall Publish Any Modification Proposed Under Sub-section (1) In The Official Gazette And In One Of The Newspapers In The Regional Languages Circulating In The Area In Which It Is Proposed To Be Covered By Such Modification, Together With The Date, Not Being Less Than Thirty Days From Such Publication In The Official Gazette, And The Time And Place At Which Any Representation Received In This Behalf Will Be Heard By The State Government.

103. Issue Of Permits To State Transport Undertakings.- (1) Where, In Pursuance Of An Approved Scheme, Any State Transport Undertaking Applies In Such Manner As May Be Prescribed By The State Government In This Behalf For A Stage Carriage Permit Or A Goods Carriage Permit Or A Contract Carriage Permit In Respect Of A Notified Area Or Notified Route, The State Transport Authority In Any Case Where The Said Area Or Route Lies In More Than One Region And The Regional Transport Authority In Any Other Case Shall Issue Such Permit To The State Transport Undertaking, Notwithstanding Anything To The Contrary Contained In Chapter V.
(2) For The Purpose Of Giving Effect To The Approved Scheme In Respect Of A Notified Area Or Notified Route, The State Transport Authority Or, As The Case May Be, The Regional Transport Authority Concerned May, By Order,-
(a) Refuse To Entertain Any Application For The Grant Or Renewal Of Any Other Permit Or Reject Any Such Application As May Be Pending;
(b) Cancel Any Existing Permit;
(c) Modify The Terms Of Any Existing Permit So As To-
(i) Render The Permit Ineffective Beyond A Specified Date;
(ii) Reduce The Number Of Vehicles Authorised To Be Used Under The Permit;
(iii) Curtail The Area Or Route Covered By The Permit In So Far As Such Permit Relates To The Notified Area Or Notified Route.
(3) For The Removal Of Doubts, It Is Hereby Declared That No Appeal Shall Lie Against Any Action Taken, Or Order Passed, By The State Transport Authority Or Any Regional Transport Authority Under Sub-section (1) Or Sub-section (2).


104. Restriction On Grant Of Permits In Respect Of A Notified Area Or Notified Route.- Where A Scheme Has Been Published Under Sub-section (3) Of Section 100 In Respect Of Any Notified Area Or Notified Route, The State Transport Authority Or The Regional Transport Authority, As The Case May Be, Shall Not Grant Any Permit Except In Accordance With The Provisions Of The Scheme:
Provided That Where No Application For A Permit Has Been Made By The State Transport Undertaking In Respect Of Any Notified Area Or Notified Route In Pursuance Of An Approved Scheme, The State Transport Authority Or The Regional Transport Authority, As The Case May Be, May Grant Temporary Permits To Any Person In Respect Of Such Notified Area Or Notified Route Subject To The Condition That Such Permit Shall Cease To Be Effective On The Issue Of A Permit To The State Transport Undertaking In Respect Of That Area Or Route.

105. Principles And Method Of Determining Compensation And Payment Thereof. - (1) Where, In Exercise Of The Powers Conferred By Clause (b) Or Clause (c) Of Sub-section (2) Of Section 103, Any Existing Permit Is Cancelled Or The Terms Thereof Are Modified, There Shall Be Paid By The State Transport Undertaking To The Holder Of The Permit, Compensation, The Amount Of Which Shall Be Determined In Accordance With The Provisions Of Sub-section (4) Or Sub-section (5), As The Case May Be.

(2) Notwithstanding Anything Contained In Sub-section (1), No Compensation Shall Be Payable On Account Of The Cancellation Of Any Existing Permit Or Any Modification Of The Terms Thereof, When A Permit For An Alternative Route Or Area In Lieu Thereof Has Been Offered By The State Transport Authority Or The Regional Transport Authority, As The Case May Be And Accepted By The Holder Of The Permit.

(3) For The Removal Of Doubts, It Is Hereby Declared That No Compensation Shall Be Payable On Account Of The Refusal To Renew A Permit Under Clause (a) Of Sub-section (2) Of Section 103.

(4) Where, In Exercise Of The Powers Conferred By Clause (b) Or Sub-clause (i) Or Sub-clause (ii) Of Clause (c) Of Sub-section (2) Of Section 103, Any Existing Permit Is Cancelled Or The Terms Thereof Are Modified So As To Prevent The Holder Of The Permit From Using Any Vehicle Authorised To Be Used Thereunder For The Full Period From Which The Permit, Would Otherwise Have Been Effective, The Compensation Payable To The Holder Of The Permit For Each Vehicle Affected By Such Cancellation Or Modification Shall Be Computed As Follows:-
(c) For Every Complete Month Or Part Of A Month Exceeding Fifteen Days Of The Unexpired Period Of The Permit - Two Hundred Rupees;
(d) For Part Of A Month Not Exceeding Fifteen Days Of The Unexpired Period Of The Permit - One Hundred Rupees:
Provided That The Amount Of Compensation Shall, In No Case, Be Less Than Four Hundred Rupees.
(5) Where, In Exercise Of The Powers Conferred By Sub-clause (iii) Of Clause (c) Of Sub-section (2) Of Section 103, The Terms Of An Existing Permit Are Modified So As To Curtail The Area Or Route Of Any Vehicle Authorised To Be Used Thereunder, The Compensation Payable To The Holder Of The Permit On Account Of Such Curtailment Shall Be An Amount Computed In Accordance With The Following Formula, Namely:-
Y X A
R
Explanation.-In This Formula,-
(i) "Y" Means The Length Or Area By Which The Route Or Area Covered By The Permit Is Curtailed;

(ii) "A" Means The Amount Computed In Accordance With Sub-section (4);
(iii) "R" Means The Total Length Of The Route Or The Total Area Covered By The Permit.
(6) The Amount Of Compensation Payable Under This Section Shall Be Paid By The State Transport Undertaking To The Person Or Persons Entitled Thereto Within One Month From The Date On Which The Cancellation Or Modification Of The Permit Becomes Effective:
Provided That Where The State Transport Undertaking Fails To Make The Payment Within The Said Period Of One Month, It Shall Pay Interest At The Rate Of Seven Per Cent, Per Annum From The Date On Which It Falls Due.
217. Repeal And Savings. - (1) The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 Of 1939) And Any Law Corresponding To That Act In Force In Any State Immediately Before The Commencement Of This Act In That State, Hereafter In This Section Referred To As The Repealed Enactments, Are Hereby Repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding The Repeal By Sub-section (1) Of The Repealed Enactments,-
(a) Any Notification, Rule, Regulation, Order Or Notice Issued, Or Any Appointment Or Declaration Made, Or Exemption Granted Or Any Confiscation Made, Or Any Penalty Or Fine Imposed, Any Forfeiture, Cancellation Or Any Other Thing Done Or Any Other Action Taken Under The Repealed Enactments, And In Force Immediately Before Such Commencement Shall, So Far As It Is Not Inconsistent With The Provisions Of The Act, Be Deemed To Have Been Issued, Made, Granted, Done Or Taken Under The Corresponding Provisions Of This Act;
(b) Any Certificate Of Fitness Or Registration Or Licence Or Permit Issued Or Granted Under The Repealed Enactments Shall Continue To Have Effect After Such Commencement Under The Same Conditions And For The Same Period As If This Act Had Not Been Passed;
(c) Any Document Referring To Any Of The Repealed Enactments Or The Provisions Thereof, Shall Be Construed As Referring To This Act Or To The Corresponding Provisions Of This Act;
(d) The Assignment Of Distinguishing Marks By The Registering Authority And The Manner Of Display On Motor Vehicles In Accordance With The Provision Of The Repealed Enactments Shall, After The Commencement Of This Act, Continue To Remain In Force Until A Notification Under Sub-section (6) Of Section 41 Of This Act Is Issued;
(e) Any Scheme Made Under Section 68-C Of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 Of 1939) Or Under The Corresponding Law, If Any, In Force In Any State And Pending Immediately Before The Commencement Of This Act Shall Be Disposed Of In Accordance With The Provisions Of Section 100 Of This Act;
(f) The Permits Issued Under Sub-section (1-A) Of Section 68F Of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 Of 1939) Or Under The Corresponding Provision, If Any, In Force In Any State Immediately Before The Commencement Of This Act Shall Continue To Remain In Force Until The Approved Scheme Under Chapter VI Of This Act Is Published.
(3) Any Penalty Payable Under Any Of The Repealed Enactments May Be Recovered In The Manner Provided By Or Under This Act, But Without Prejudice To Any Action Already Taken For The Recovery Of Such Penalty Under The Repealed Enactments.
(4) The Mention Of Particular Matter In This Section Shall Not Be Held To Prejudice Or Affect The General Application Of Section 6 Of The General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 Of 1897) With Regard To The Effect Of Repeals.

U.P.State Transport Services Development Rules, 1974:

5. Manner Of Filing Objection. - (1) Objections Under Section 68-D Of The Act Shall Be Filed In The Form Of A Memorandum In Duplicate Setting Forth Concisely Grounds Of Objections To The Scheme.
(2) The Memorandum Of Objections Shall Be Addressed To The Secretary To Government, Uttar Pradesh In The Transport Department.
(3) A Copy Of The Memorandum Of Objections Shall Be Sent By The Objectors To General Manager.
(4) The Memorandum Of Objection Shall Also Contained The Following Information:
(a) Full Name And Address Of The Objector On Whom Services Of Notices And Orders Under These Rules May Be Made;
(b) Whether Or Not Such Person Is A Holder Of A Permit Issued Under The Provisions Of The Act;
(c) The Particulars Of The Route Or Routes Or The Area Or Areas Specified In Such Permit Or Permits.
(5) An Objector Desiring To Be Heard Shall Also Submit Along With The Memorandum Of Objections A List Of Documents And Witnesses Along With Their Names And Addresses And A Brief Summary Of The Nature And Type Of Evidence Which Each Such Witness Is Likely To Give.

6. Consideration And Disposal Of Objections. (1) The Objections So Received Shall Be Considered And Disposed Of By Such Officer Of The State Government As May Be Authorised In This Behalf By The Governor Or Under Clause (1) Of Article 154 Of The Constitution Under The Rules, Made By Him In Pursuance Of Clause (3) Of Article 165 Of The Constitution.
(2) Such Officer Shall Fix The Date, Time And Place For The Hearing Of The Objections And Issue Notices Thereof, To The Objectors And The Representatives Of The Corporation, Calling Upon Them To Appear Before Him In Person Or Through A Duly Authorised Agent Or Counsel And To Produce Their Oral And Documentary Evidence On The Date Fixed For Hearing.
(3) The Notices Under Sub-rule (2) Shall Be Served By -
(a) Publishing At Least Ten Days Before The Date Fixed For Hearing A General Notice In The Official Gazette Giving The Date, Time And Place Fixed For The Hearing Of Objections, And
(b) Sending Notice By Registered Post To The Objector At The Address As Shown In The Memorandum Of Objection And To The Corporation:
Provided That Where A General Notice Has Been Published As Aforesaid The Service Thereof Shall Notwithstanding Anything Contained In Clause (b) Be Deemed To Have Been Duly Effected On The Objector And The Corporation.
(4) Subject To The Provisions Of Sub-rule (7), The Objector And The Corporation Shall Produce Their Evidence And Witnesses, Necessary And Relevant To The Enquiry, On The Date Fixed For The Hearing.
(5) No Objector Shall Be Entitled To Be Heard Unless The Objections Are Made In Accordance With The Provisions Of These Rules.
(6) Such Officer Shall Have The Powers To Control The Giving And Recording Of Evidence So As To Prevent The Production Of Unnecessary Evidence Or The Misuse Of The Process.
(7) (a) Such Officer May, If Sufficient Cause Is Shown At Any Stage Of The Hearing, Grant Time To The Parties Or To Any Of Them And May From Time To Time Adjourn The Hearing.
(b) In Every Case Such Officer Shall Fix The Date For The Further Hearing Of The Objections And May Make Such Orders As It Thinks Fit With Respect To The Costs Occasioned By The Adjournment.
(8) The Costs Of Producing Any Evidence Shall Be Borne By The Party Producing The Same.
(9) After The Hearing Of Such Parties As Appear, Such Officer Shall Give A Decision Approving Or Modifying The Scheme As He May Deem Proper.

7. Publication Of The Approved Scheme. Subject To The Provisions Of The Proviso To Sub-section (3) Of Section 68-D Of The Act, The Scheme As Approved Or Modified By Such Officer Shall, As Far As Possible, Be Published In The Official Gazette In Form II."

Scheme Of Exclusive/partial Operation Of Transport Services :
From A Perusal Of The Aforesaid Provisions, We Find That, Both Under The 1939 Act And The 1988 Act, "route" Has Been Defined In The Same Term, Viz., A Line Of Travel Which Specifies The Highway Which May Be Traversed By A Motor Vehicle Between One Terminus And Another.
The 1939 Act Empowered For Publication Of The Scheme For Road Transport Service Of The State Transport Undertaking.
Section 68B Which Is Contained In Chapter IV-A Of The 1939 Act, Makes The Provisions Of Chapter IV And The Rules And Orders Made Thereunder To Have Effect Notwithstanding Anything Inconsistent Contained In Chapter IV Of The Act Or Any Other Law For The Time Being In Force Or In Any Instrument Having Effect By Virtue Of Any Such Law.
Under Section 68C Of The 1939 Act, The State Transport Undertaking Has Been Given The Discretion To Operate Its Services In Relation To Any Area Or Route Or Portion Thereof Either Exclusively Or Completely Or Partially, Provided It Was Of The Opinion That For The Purpose Of Providing An Efficient, Adequate, Economical And Properly Co-ordinated Road Transport Service Is Required In The Public Interest. In Such A Situation, The State Transport Undertaking Can Prepare A Scheme Giving The Nature Of The Services Proposed To Be Rendered, The Area Or Route Proposed To Be Covered And Such Other Particulars Respecting Thereto, As May Be Prescribed. The Scheme Was To Be Published In The Official Gazette And Also In Such Other Manner As The State Government May Direct.
Under Section 68D Of The 1939 Act, Objections Were To Be Filed Within 30 Days From Its Publication In The Official Gazette. The Right To File Objections Have Been Provided Only To Three Class Of Persons, Namely (i) Any Person Already Providing Transport Facilities By Any Means Along Or Near The Area Or Route Proposed To Be Covered By The Scheme; (ii) Any Association Representing Persons Interested In The Provision Of Road Transport Facilities Recognised In This Behalf By The State Government; And (iii) Any Local Authority Or Police Authority Within Whose Jurisdiction Any Part Of The Area Or Route Proposed To Be Covered By The Scheme Lies. Apart From The Aforementioned Three Classes Of Persons, No Other Person Has Been Given The Right To File Any Objections To The Proposed/draft Scheme. Under Sub-section (2) Of Section 68D, The State Government May, After Considering The Objections And After Giving An Opportunity To The Objector Or His Representatives And The Representatives Of The State Transport Undertaking To Be Heard In The Matter, If They So Desire, Approve Or Modify The Scheme. Under Sub-section (3) The Approved Or Modified Scheme Is To Be Published In The Official Gazette By The State Government And The Same Shall Thereupon Become Final. Such A Scheme Would Be Called The Approved Scheme Of The Notified Area Or Notified Route To Which It Relates. However, In Respect Of A Scheme Which Related To Any Inter-State Route, It Is Required To Be Published In The Official Gazette Only With The Previous Approval Of The Central Government.
Under Section 68E The State Transport Undertaking Has Been Empowered To Cancel And Modify Any Scheme Published Under Sub-section (3) Of Section 68D And Has Also Been Empowered To Increase The Number Of Vehicles Or The Number Of Trips And Certain Allied Matters. Under Sub-section (2), The State Government Has Also Been Empowered To Modify Any Scheme Published Under Sub-section (3) Of Section 68D After Giving The State Transport Undertaking Or Any Other Person Who Is Likely To Be Affected By The Proposed Modification, An Opportunity Of Hearing.
Under Section 68F The State Transport Authority And The Regional Transport Authority, As The Case May Be, Are Obliged To Issue Stage Carriage Permit Or A Public Carrier's Permit Or A Contract Carriage Permit In Respect Of A Notified Area Or Notified Route To The State Transport Undertaking Pursuant To An Approved Scheme. Under Sub-section (1-A) The State Transport Undertaking Can Be Issued Temporary Permit During The Period Intervening The Date Of Publication Of The Draft Scheme And The Date Of Publication Of The Approved Or Modified Scheme. Sub-section (1-B) Provides That The Life Of Temporary Permit Issued Under Sub-section (1-A). It Has Been Specified To Be Effective If The Scheme Is Published Under Sub-section (3) Of Section 68D, Until The Grant Of The Permit To The State Transport Undertaking Under Sub-section (1) Or If The Scheme Is Not Published Under Sub-section (3) Of Section 68D, Until The Expiration Of The One Week From The Date On Which The Order Under Sub-section (2) Of Section 68D Has Been Published Meaning Thereby That The Approved Scheme Or Modified Scheme Pursuant To The Order Passed Under Sub-section (2) Of 68-D Have Necessarily To Be Published Within One Week Otherwise All Temporary Permit Issued To The State Transport Undertaking During The Pendency Of The Approval Of The Draft Scheme Shall Cease After One Week Of The Approval Or Modification Of The Draft Scheme. Sub-section (1-C) Provides That If The State Transport Undertaking Has Not Made Any Application For A Temporary Permit Under Sub-section (1-A) Then The State Transport Authority Or The Regional Transport Authority, As The Case May Be, May Grant Temporary Permit To Any Person In Respect Of The Area Or Route Or Portion Thereof Specified In The Scheme On Such Conditions As It May Think Fit And The Permit So Granted Shall Cease To Be Effective On The Issue Of A Permit To The State Transport Undertaking In Respect Of That Area Or Route Or Portion Thereof. Sub-section (1-D) Prohibits The Grant/issue Of Permit Including Its Renewal During The Period Intervening The Date Of Publication Under Section 68-C Of Any Scheme And The Date Of Publication Of The Approved Or Modified Scheme. However, If The Existing Permit Issued Prior To The Scheme Published Under Section 68-C Expires After Such Publication, It Can Be Renewed For A Limited Period Which Shall Cease To Be Effective On The Publication Of The Scheme Under Sub-section (3) Of Section 68-D. Under Sub-section (l-E), The State Transport Undertaking Can Apply For Renewal Of A Permit Within The Time Specified In Sub-section (2A) Of Section 58 Which Is Not Less Than 15 Days Before The Date Of Expiry Of The Permit. The State Transport Authority Or The Regional Transport Authority Has To Renew Such Permit Notwithstanding Anything To The Contrary Contained In Chapter IV Of The 1939 Act. Sub-section (2) Empowers The State Transport Authority Or The Regional Transport Authority To Give Effect To The Approved Scheme In Respect Of A Notified Area Or Notified Route. They Can Refuse To Entertain Any Application For The Grant Or Renewal Of Any Other Permit Or Reject A Fresh Application Which May Be Pending Or Cancel The Existing Permit Or Modify The Terms Of Any Existing Permit So As To Render The Permit Ineffective Beyond A Specified Date, Modify The Number Of Vehicles Authorised To Be Used Under The Permit, Curtail The Area Or Route Covered By The Permit In So Far As Such Permit Relates To The Notified Area Or Notified Route. Under Sub-section (3) The Order Passed By The State Transport Authority Or Any Regional Transport Authority Under Sub-section (1) Or Sub-section (2) Has Been Made Final And It Has Been Provided That No Appeal Shall Lie.
Under Section 68 FF Restriction On Grant Of Permits In Respect Of A Notified Area Or Notified Route Has Been Provided. According To The Said Provisions, If The Scheme Has Been Published Under Sub-section (3) Of Section 68D In Respect Of Any Notified Area Or Notified Route, The State Transport Authority Or The Regional Transport Authority, As The Case May Be, Has Been Prohibited To Grant Any Permit Except In Accordance With The Provisions Of The Scheme. However, Under The Proviso, Where No Application For A Permit Has Been Made By The State Transport Undertaking In Respect Of Any Notified Area Or Notified Route In Pursuance Of An Approved Scheme, The State Transport Authority Or The Regional Transport Authority, As The Case May Be, May Grant Temporary Permits To Any Person In Respect Of Such
notified Area Or Notified Route Subject To The Condition That Such Permit Shall Cease To Be Effective On The Issue Of A Permit To The State Transport Undertaking In Respect Of That Area Or Route.
Section 68G Provides For The Principles And Method Of Determining Compensation To Existing Permit Holders Whose Permit Is Cancelled/modified Pursuant To The Approved Scheme Notified Under Section 68D Of The 1939 Act, Whereas Under Section 68H, The State Transport Undertaking Is Enjoined To Make Payment Of The Amount Of Compensation Within A Specified Period To All Such Persons Whose Permit Is Cancelled/modified.
From The Aforesaid Discussions, The Inevitable Conclusion Is That Under The Scheme Of The 1939 Act, Referred To Above, We Find That Where A Draft Scheme Or A Proposal Has Been Notified By The State Transport Undertaking In Respect Of An Area Or A Route, The Right To File Objections Has Been Conferred Upon Three Classes Of Persons, Namely, The Existing Operators, Any Association Representing Persons Interest In The Provisions Of Road Transport Facilities And Any Local Authority Or Police Authority Within Whose Jurisdiction Any Part Of The Area Or The Route Of The Scheme Lies. Except The Aforesaid Three Classes Of Persons, No Body Else Can Prefer The Objections. The Objections Are To Be Heard By The Officer Nominated By The State Government And The Principles Of Natural Justice Has To Be Followed. The State Transport Undertaking Has Also Been Given A Right To Put Forward Its Views On The Objections, If Any, Filed By The Aforementioned Persons. The Hearing Authority Has Been Empowered To Either Approve The Draft Scheme As Such Or To Modify The Same. The Approved Or Modified Scheme Has To Be Published In The Official Gazette And Also In One Regional Newspapers Circulating In The Area Where The Area Or The Route Lies, Within A Week.
Further, During The Pendency Of The Matter Before The Hearing Authority, I.e., After The Publication Of The Draft Scheme And Before The Hearing Authority Either Approves The Draft Scheme Or Modifies The Draft Scheme Till Its Publication, The State Transport Undertaking Can Apply For A Temporary Permit In Respect Of The Area Or Route Or Any Portion Thereof Covered By The Draft Scheme. Such Temporary Permit Shall Be Effective Till Such Time A Permit Is Granted To The State Transport Undertaking After The Scheme Has Been Published Or In Case The Scheme Has Not Been Published, Then Till The Expiration Of One Week From The Date On Which The Hearing Authority Has Either Modified Or Approved The Scheme. However, Where The State Transport Undertaking Has Not Made Any Application For Grant Of Temporary Permit Pending Finalisation Of The Draft Scheme, The Authorities Can Issue Temporary Permit To Any Person In Respect Of The Area Or Route Or Portion Thereof Specified In The Draft Scheme On Certain Terms And Conditions But Such A Temporary Permit Shall Cease To Be Effective Upon The Issue Of A Permit To The State Transport Undertaking Covering That Area. Regular Stage Carriage Permit Or A Public Carrier's Permit Or A Contract Carriage Permit Has To Be Issued To The State Transport Undertaking If Such An Application Is Made After The Scheme Has Been Approved/modified In Accordance With The Said Scheme. However, If The State Transport Undertaking Has Not Made Any Application For Issue Of A Permit On Any Notified Area Or Notified Route Pursuant To An Approved Scheme, The Authority Can Grant A Temporary Permit To Any Person In Respect Of Such Area Which Would Cease To Be Effective On Issue Of A Permit To The State Transport Undertaking In Respect Of That Area Or Route. The State Transport Authorities Have Been Prohibited To Issue Temporary Permit And/or Regular Permit During The Pendency Of The Draft Scheme And After The Publication Of The Approved Or Modified Scheme, Except As Mentioned Above. They Have Also Been Enjoined To Cancel All Such Permits Which Are Not Saved By The Scheme. The Existing Permit Holders Who Are Affected By The Approved Scheme, Are Only Entitled For Payment Of Compensation Which Is To Be Determined In The Prescribed Manner.
Under The Rules, The Manner Of Filing Objections, Consideration, Disposal And Publication Of The Approved Scheme Has Been Provided. Rule 5 Deals With The Manner Of Filing Objections Which Provides That The Objections Under Section 68-D Of The 1939 Act Has To Be Filed In The Form Of A Memorandum In Duplicate Which Is To Be Addressed To The Secretary To Government, Uttar Pradesh In The Transport Department. A Copy Of The Memorandum Of Objections Has To Be Sent By The Objectors To General Manager, State Transport Undertaking And, If Any Objector Desires To Be Heard, He Has To Submit Along With The Memorandum Of Objections A List Of Documents And Witnesses Along With Their Names And Addresses And A Brief Summary Of The Nature And Type Of Evidence Which Each Such Witness Is Likely To Give.
Under Rule 6 The Objections So Received Has To Be Considered And Disposed Of By Such Officer Of The State Government, As May Be Authorised In This Behalf By The Governor. The Officer Is Called The Hearing Authority. He Has To Fix The Date, Time And Place For The Hearing Of The Objections And Issue Notices Both To The Objectors And The Representatives Of The Corporation, Calling Upon Them To Appear Before Him In Person Or Through A Duly Authorised Agent Or Counsel And To Produce Their Oral And Documentary Evidence On The Date Fixed For Hearing. A General Notice Has To Be Published In The Official Gazette At Least Ten Days Before The Date Fixed For Hearing And Individual Notice To The Objector At The Address As Shown In The Memorandum Of Objection And To The Corporation. However, Where A General Notice Has Been Published, The Service Has To Be Deemed To Have Been Duly Effected On The Objector And The Corporation Irrespective Of The Fact Whether The Registered Notices Have Been Received By Them Or Not. Sub-rule (4) Of Rule 6 Empowers The Objector And The Corporation To Produce Their Evidence And Witnesses, Necessary And Relevant To The Enquiry, On The Date Fixed For The Hearing. However, Sub-rule (5) Provides That The Objector Shall Not Be Entitled To Be Heard Unless The Objections Are Made In Accordance With The Provisions Of These Rules. The Hearing Authority Has Been Given The Powers To Adjourn Or To Extend The Time. After The Hearing Authority Gives A Decision Approving Or Modifying The Scheme As He May Deem Proper.
Under Rule 7, The Scheme Is Required To Be Published In The Official Gazette In Form II.
Section 98 Falls Under Chapter VI Of The 1988 Act. It Provides That The Provisions Of This Chapter And The Rules And Orders Made Thereunder Shall Have Effect Notwithstanding Anything Inconsistent Therewith Contained In Chapter V Or In Any Other Law For The Time Being In Force Or In Any Instrument Having Effect By Virtue Of Any Such Law. It Is Analogous To Section 68B Of The 1939 Act.
The Scheme Of The 1988 Act Is Somewhat Different. Under The 1988 Act, Unlike The State Transport Undertaking Preparing A Scheme And Notifying It Under The 1939 Act, The State Government Has Been Empowered Under Section 99 To Prepare And Notify The Scheme. Under Sub-section (2) Of Section 99 When The Proposal Is Published, Then From The Date Of The Publication Of Such Proposal, No Permit Can Be Granted To Any Person Except A Temporary Permit During The Pendency Of The Proposal Which Is Valid Only For A Period Of One Year From The Date Of Its Issue Or Till The Date Of Final Publication Of The Scheme Under Section 100, Whichever Is Earlier.
Section 100 Deals With The Objection To The Proposal. Under Sub-section (1), Any Person Can File Objections Within Thirty Days From The Date Of Publication Of The Scheme In The Official Gazette, Before The State Government. Under Sub-section (2), The State Government Had To Decide The Objections And Thereafter, Under Sub-section (3), It Is To Be Published In The Official Gazette And Not Less Than One Newspaper In The Regional Language Circulating In The Area Or Route Covered By Such Scheme. Sub-section (4) Provides A Limitation Of One Year For Publication Of The Approved Scheme From The Date Of Publication Of The Proposal Otherwise The Proposal Would Be Deemed To Have Lapsed. However, The Period Of Stay Or Injunction By The Order Of Any Court Is To Be Excluded While Counting The Period Of One Year.
Under Section 101, The State Transport Undertaking Has Been Empowered To Operate Additional Service For The Conveyance Of The Passengers On Special Occasions, Like Fairs And Religious Gatherings, After Informing The Transport Authority Concerned.
Under Section 102 The State Government Has Been Empowered To Modify Any Approved Scheme In The Public Interest But It Could Be Done Only After Giving An Opportunity Of Being Heard To The State Transport Undertaking And To Any Person Who Is Likely To Be Affected By The Proposed Modification,
Section 103 Deals With The Provisions For The Issuance Of Permits To The State Transport Undertaking After A Scheme Has Been Approved. It Obliges The State Transport Authority Or The Regional Transport Authority To Issue Permit To The State Transport Undertaking If It So Applies. Under Sub-section (2), The Authority Has Been Empowered To Refuse To Entertain Any Application For The Grant Or Renewal Of Any Other Permit Or Reject Any Such Application As May Be Pending, Cancel Any Existing Permit Or Modify The Terms Of Any Existing Permit Rendering It Ineffective Beyond A Specified Date Or To Reduce The Number Of Vehicles Authorised To Be Used Under The Permit Or To Curtail The Area Or Route Covered By The Permit In So Far As Such Permit Relates To The Notified Area Or Notified Route. Sub-section (3) Makes The Order Of The Authority Final As It Provides That No Appeal Shall Lie Against Any Action Taken, Or Order Passed Under Sub-section (1) Or Sub-section (2).
Section 104 Prohibits Grant Of Any Permit Except In Accordance With The Provisions Of The Notified Scheme. However, Under The Proviso, If The State Transport Undertaking Has Not Made Any Application For A Permit In Respect Of Any Notified Area Or Notified Route Pursuant To The Approved Scheme, The Transport Authority Has Been Permitted To Grant Permit To Any Person In Respect Of Such Notified Area Or Notified Route Subject To The Condition That Such Permit Shall Cease To Be Effective On The Issue Of A Permit To The State Transport Undertaking In Respect Of The Area Or Route. This Provision Is Analogous To Section 68FF Of The 1939 Act.
Like The Provisions Of Sections 68G And 68H Of The 1939 Act, Under The 1988 Act Also Similar Provisions Have Been Incorporated In Section 105 For Determination And Payment Of Compensation To The Existing Permit Holders Affected By The Approved Scheme.
Section 217 Deals With Repeal And Savings. Clause (e) Of Sub-section (2) Of Section 217 Provides For Disposal Of Scheme Made Under Section 68-C Of The 1939 Act, In Accordance With The Provisions Of Section 100 Of The 1988 Act, Whereas Clause (f) Makes The Permits, If Any, Already Issued Under Section 68F(1A) Of The 1939 Act, To Remain In Force Until The Approved Scheme Is Published.
Directions Given By The Apex Court In The Case Of Gajraj Singh :
The Present Writ Petitions Are To Be Decided On The Basis Of The Directions Issued By The Apex Court In The Case Of Gajraj Singh (supra), Which Are To The Following Effect :-
1. The Objections Filed Against The Draft Scheme Dated 18.2.1986 Insofar As They Relate To The 38 Routes, Listed At Serial Nos.2 To 39 Of The Scheme, Shall Be Heard And Disposed Of On Their Own Merits In Accordance With Law;
2. The Competent Authority Shall, Within A Period Of Four Weeks, Notify A Date For Hearing;
3. Only Such Of The Objections Shall Be Available To Be Heard And Decided As Were Filed Within 30 Days Of The Date Of Publication Of The Draft Scheme In The Official Gazette And Which Were Maintainable And Available To Be Heard In Accordance With Section 68-D Of The 1939 Act Read With Sub-section (2) Of Section 100 Of The 1988 Act;
4. The Period Of 30 Days For Filing Of Objections Having Come To An End Before 1.7.1988, The Date Of Coming Into Force Of The 1988 Act, The Competent Authority Shall Hear All Such Parties Who Were Entitled In Law To Be Heard On The Crucial Date If They Have Filed Their Objections Within The Stipulated Period;
5. The Draft Scheme Dated 18.2.1986, Which Was Notified On 29.5.1993 As The Approved Scheme, Had Not Been Quashed;
6. If All The Objections Or Any Of Them Are Allowed, The Draft Scheme Shall Meet The Fate Consistent With The Decision On The Objections Of The Approved Scheme Dated 29.5.1993 And Shall Be Accordingly Modified Or Annulled Insofar As The Routes Specified At Serial Nos.2 To 39 Are Concerned;
7. In The Event Of The Objections Being Dismissed, The Approved Scheme, As Notified On 29.5.1993, Shall Continue To Remain In Operation.
8. In Respect Of Saharanpur-Delhi Route, No Objection In That Regard Shall Be Heard And The Scheme As Regards The Said Route Shall Be Deemed To Have Been Approved And Maintained In Terms Of The Order Passed In Ram Krishna Verma (supra).
Objections - Whether Filed Within The Specified Period Or Not :
Much Hue And Cry Was Made By Sri Samir Sharma, Appearing On Behalf Of The Corporation That Against The Draft Scheme Published On 13.2.1986, The Objections Had Not Been Filed At All And, In Any Event, They Were Not Available Before The Hearing Authority When He Proceeded To Decide The Same. This Submission Is Factually Not Correct. In The Counter Affidavit Filed By Avnish Kumar Whose Impleadment Application Filed Alongwith 21 Others, Being Civil Misc. Application No.78079 Of 2006, Had Been Allowed On 10.5.2006, In Paragraph 6(xvi), It Has Been Stated That The Then Deputy Secretary To The Government Of Uttar Pradesh, Who Has Filed A Counter Affidavit In The Earlier Round Of Proceeding, Had Admitted That The Objections Were Received By The Hearing Authority, The Official Of The Corporation Had Also Admitted The Receipt And Pendency Of The Proceeding Before The Hearing Authority. In Paragraph 6(xx), It Has Been Stated That The State Government Issued Personal Notice To All The Objectors Whose Objections Had Been Filed Within The Stipulated Period Of 30 Days And Were Pending Before It. It Has Been Further Mentioned In Paragraph 6(xxii) That During The Course Of Hearing Before The Hearing Authority, The Corporation Had Never Raised Any Objection With Regard To Receiving Of Objections Of The Existing Operators Within Stipulated Period Of 30 Days And, Therefore, The Question Of Making Any Roving Enquiry As To Who Had Filed Objections Within 30 Days Did Not Arise. For Ready Reference, Sub-paragraphs (xvi), (xx) And (xxii) Of Paragraph 6 Of The Counter Affidavit Filed By Avnish Kumar Are Reproduced Below :-
"xvi That Being Aggrieved By The Final Notification Dated 29.5.1993 The Existing Operators Including The Present Respondents Filed Writ Petition In The Hon'ble High Court Of Allahabad Categorically Stating That Their Proceedings On Their Objections Were Pending Before The Hearing Authority When The Final Notification Dated 29.5.1993 Was Passed And They Were Not Heard. The Hon'ble Court Issued Show Cause Notice To The State Government As Well As Corporation. In Pursuance Of The Said Notice The State Government Filed An Affidavit Before This Hon'ble Court And In The Said Affidavit It Was Admitted That The Objections Were Received By The Hearing Authority I.e. The Special Secretary And Legal Remembrance. Copy Of The Affidavit Filed By Sri R.S.Misra, Deputy Secretary Of The Government Filed In Leading Case Of Munni Devi Is Filed As Annexure No.CA-6 To This Counter Affidavit. Similar Affidavit Filed By The Petitioner UPSRTC Admitting The Receipt And Pendency Of Proceeding Before The Hearing Authority With Regard To 38 Routes. Copy Of Affidavit Filed By UPSRTC Is Filed As Annexure No.CA-7 To The Counter Affidavit.

xx. That The State Government Parivahan-II In Compliance With The Order Of The Hon'ble Court On 8.6.2001 Issued Personal Notice To All The Objectors Whose Objections Were Filed Within Stipulated Period Of 30 Days And Were Pending Before It Fixing The Date Of Hearing And Directing Them To Appear Personally Or Through Their Counsel. In The Said Individual Notice Different Dates Of Hearing Were Given To The Objectors Who Filed Objections And Pending Hearing Before The Hearing Authority. Pursuant To The Said Judgment And Order Of The Hon'ble Supreme Court, The Hearing Authority Directed The Existing Operators To Prove Their Cases With Regard To Filing Of Their Objections Given By The Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly The Existing Operators/objectors Had Filed All The Documents Including Photocopy Of Objections And Due Endorsement Of Receipt By The State Government In Support Of Their Case To Show That Their Objections Were Filed Within Time. The True Copy Of The Notice Is Filed As Annexure No.CA-11 To This Counter Affidavit.

xxii. That It Is Not Out Of Place To Mention Here That During The Course Of Hearing Before The Hearing Authority UPSRTC Has Never Raised Any Objection With Regard To Receiving Of Objections Of The Existing Operators Within Stipulated Period Of 30 Days. Since The Hearing Was Already Continued As It Even Clear From The Proceedings Of The Hearing Authority So The Question Of Making Any Roving Enquiry As To Who Had Filed Objections Within 30 Days From The Date Of Publication Did Not Arise. Had The Said Objection Been Raised During The Course Of Hearing Before The Hearing Authority The Present Respondents Would Have Adduced Relevant Evidence To Show Their Objections Having Been Filed Within The Stipulated Period And Had Been Received By The State Government As Well As By UPSRTC."

From A Perusal Of Annexure CA 6 Which Is A Copy Of The Second Short Counter Affidavit Filed By Sri R.S.Misra, Deputy Secretary (Transport), Government Of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.32226 Of 1999, Smt. Munni Devi V. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut And Others, Through Its Regional Chairman, We Find That In Paragraph 6 It Has Been Stated That The Objection Against The Proposed Scheme Dated 13.2.1986 Was Already Pending Before The Hearing Authority. For Ready Reference, Paragraph 6 Of The Counter Affidavit Filed By Sri R.S.Misra Is Reproduced Below:-
"That After Approval Of The Scheme, Since The Objections Against The Proposed Scheme Dated 13.2.1986 Was Already Pending Before Hearing Authority And The Matter Was Taken Up On 24.7.1993 For Consigning To Records, But, In The Meantime One Shri K.K.Dhawan, Advocate, Filed Objections Against The Proposed Scheme Dated 13.2.1986 And It Was Argued Before The Hearing Authority That Since The Draft Scheme Dated 29.5.1993 Is Under Challenge Before Hon'ble High Court And During The Course Of Hearing, Of That Draft Scheme, The Hearing Authority May Stay The Further Hearing Of The Objections And As Such The Hearing Authority Passed An Order On 24.7.1993 And Stayed The Hearing Of The Objections Filed Against The Proposed Draft Scheme Dated 13.2.1986 And Further Date Was Fixed For 5.10.1993. A Photocopy Of The Order Passed By The Hearing Authority On 14.7.1993 Is Being Annexed Herewith And Marked As Annexure No.CA-1. The Government Also Passed An Order Dated 19.8.1993 Holding Therein That Since The Approved Scheme Has Already Been Published On 29.5.1993 And Publication Of The Draft Scheme, There Is No Question Of Hearing Any Objection Regarding The Draft Scheme; But Since The Counsel For The UPSRTC Himself Did Not Place This Fact That Further Hearing Is Not Required After Approval Of The Scheme, As Such Further Date Was Got Fixed By The Counsel For The UPSRTC And It Was Further Observed By The State Government That The Matter Should Be Brought Before The Hearing Authority And The Hearing Authority May Fix Some Date By Giving Them Notice And Drop The Matter In View Of The Publication Of The Draft Scheme Dated 29.5.1993. A Photostat Copy Of The Government Noting Dated 19.8.1993 Is Being Annexed Herewith And Marked As Annexure No.CA-2."
(underlined By Us)

In The Counter Affidavit Of Sri R.P.Jain, General Manager (Operations), UPSRTC, Lucknow, Filed In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.Nil Of 1993, Rasheed Ahmad Khan And Others V. State Of U.P. And Others, In Paragraph 3H, It Has Been Stated That Against The Scheme Existing Operators Filed Objections And The Matter Remained Pending. For Ready Reference, Paragraph 3H Of The Said Counter Affidavit Is Reproduced Below:-
"H. That In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Hon'ble Supreme Court, The State Transport Undertaking Examined The Matter And Was Of The View That For The Purpose Of Providing Efficient, Adequate, Economical And Properly Coordinated Road Transport Services It Was Necessary In Public Interest That Road Transport Services In Relation To Saharanpur Delhi Route For Those 50 Operators As Also For 38 Routes Including Operations Thereof Should Be Run And Operated By The Corporation To The Complete Exclusion Of Private Operators. Accordingly, It Published A Scheme Under Section 68-C Of Motor Vehicles Act Read With Rule 4 Of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Services (Development) Rules, 1974 Vide Notification No.1259-RW/1056-RW/85 Dated 13.2.1986. Against That Scheme Existing Operators Filed Objections And The Matter Remained Pending."
(underlined By Us)

Annexure No.CA-10 Is The Copy Of The Document Filed Before The Apex Court In S.L.P.(C) No.18520 Of 1999 In The Matter Of Gajraj Singh And Others V. State Of U.P. And Others. It Also Includes The Order Sheet Of The Matter Relating To Disposal Of Objections Against The Scheme Before The Hearing Authority. Relevant Order Sheet Entry Is Dated 21.9.1992. From Its Perusal, It Appears That The Corporation Had Filed Application Before The Hearing Authority Seeking Time To File The Counter Affidavit To The Affidavits Filed By The Operators, Which Time Was Allowed. For Ready Reference, The Order Sheet Entry Dated 21.9.1992 Is Reproduced Below:-
"Application By U.P.S.R.T.C. For Time To File Counter Affidavit On Copies Of Affidavits Filed By Operators Could Not Be Made Available. Ground Is Affixed.
Order
Application Is Allowed. Counter Affidavit Be Filed By 9.10.92.
Sd/- Illegible
21.9.92"

It May Be Mentioned Here That The Averments Made In The Counter Affidavit Filed By Avnish Kumar Remained Uncontroverted By The Corporation. From The Aforesaid Averments, It Is Seen That The State Government As Also The Corporation Had Admitted That The Existing Operators Had Filed Their Objections To The Draft Scheme Published On 13.2.1986 And Were Pending When The Matter Was Remanded By The Apex Court In The Case Of Gajraj Singh (supra). Further, We Find That Neither The State Government Nor The Corporation, At Any Point Of Time Had Disputed Before The Hearing Authority The Factum Of Any Objection Having Not Been Filed Within The Stipulated Period. On The Other Hand, From The Material On Record Placed Before Us, We Are Of The Considered Opinion That The Objections Had Been Filed By The Existing Operators And This Fact Also Stands Admitted To Both The State Government As Also The Corporation. As No Dispute Was Raised Before The Hearing Authority Regarding The Filing Of Objections Within Stipulated Period Of 30 Days, The Hearing Authority, On The Basis Of The Affidavits And Other Documents, Namely, Copies Of The Acknowledgement Slips, Which Were Not Disputed By The Corporation, Had Proceeded To Take Into Consideration And Decided The Same. We Do Not Find Any Illegality In The Approach Of The Hearing Authority.
It May Be Mentioned Here That The Original Record Containing Objections Had Been Misplaced Somewhere During Shifting Of Records From One Place To Another And Only A List Of The Objectors Was Available On Record, For Whom Notice Was Published In The Newspapers And Copies Of The Objections Alongwith Proof Of Its Filing Within The Stipulated Period Was Required To Be Submitted. The Hearing Authority Has Accepted The Proof Of Filing Of The Objections Within Stipulated Period On The Basis Of Copies Of Acknowledgement Slip Which Was Not Even Disputed By The Corporation Which Was Granted A Full Length Hearing. Thus, We Are Of The Considered Opinion That The Objections Were, In Fact, Filed By The Existing Operators, Which Have Been Considered By The Hearing Authority.
Whether The Persons Who Have Been Granted Permits After The Draft Scheme Has Been Notified Or Any Other Persons Are Entitled To File Objections Under Section 68-D Of The 1939 Act :

The Scheme Of Section 68-D Of The 1939 Act Clearly Restricts The Category Of Persons Who May File Objections, To Three Classes - (i) Any Person Already Providing Transport Facilities By Any Means Along Or Near The Area Of Route Proposed To Be Covered By The Scheme, I.e., Existing Permit Holders Who Are Going To Be Affected By The Scheme; (ii) Association Representing Persons Interested In The Provision Of Road Transport Facilities Recognised By The State Government And (iii) Any Local Authority Or Police Authorities Within Whose Jurisdiction Any Part Of The Area Or Route Proposed To Be Covered By The Scheme Lies. A Stranger Or A Person Who Has Been Granted Temporary Permits Subsequent To The Notification Of The Draft Scheme, Is Not Entitled To File His Objections.
In The Case Of Kumari T.P.Roshana (supra), The Apex Court, In Paragraph 40 Of Its Report, Has Held As Follows:-
"The Root Of The Grievance And The Fruit Of The Wit Are Not Individual But Collective And While The 'adversary System' Makes The Judge A Mere Umpire, Traditionally Speaking, The Community Orientation Of The Judicial Function, So Desirable In The Third World Remedial Jurisprudence, Transforms The Court's Power Into Affirmative Structuring Of Redress So As To Make It Personally Meaningful And Socially Relevant. Frustration Of Invalidity Is Part Of The Judicial Duty; Fulfillment Of Legality Is Complementary. This Principle Of Affirmative Action Is Within Our Jurisdiction Under Art. 136 And Art 32 And We Think The Present Cases Deserve Its Exercise."

In The Case Of Sampatti Lal (supra), A Division Bench Of This Court Has Held That The Directions Issued Therein Would Not Be Confined To Those Who Have Come To The Court In A Writ Petition.
In The Case Of Punjab Engineering College (supra), The Apex Court Has Held That All The Candidates Who Applied For Admission In The Previous Session, Should Be Considered On The Basis Of Open Merit Irrespective Of Whether They Have Filed The Writ Petition Or Not.
The Principles Laid Down In The Aforesaid Cases Would Not Apply To The Present Case In View Of The Specific Provisions Of Section 68-D Of The 1939 Act. Moreover, In The Case Of Gajraj Singh (supra) The Apex Court Has Directed The Hearing Authority To Consider And Decide The Objections Filed By The Existing Operators Within The Stipulated Period.
Scheme - Whether Liable To Be Declared As Lapsed After A Period Of 30 Years :

The Draft Scheme Was Published On 13.2.1986. There Was A Series Of Litigation And Finally The Apex Court, In The Case Of Gajraj Singh (supra), Has Held That The Scheme Had Not Lapsed. Despite This, This Court, While Deciding Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9332 Of 2002 And Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5857 Of 2002, Vide Judgment And Order Dated 23.7.2002, Had Held The Scheme To Have Lapsed In View Of The Provisions Of Section 100(4) Of The 1988 Act. This View Was Reversed By The Apex Court In The Appeal Preferred By The Corporation In The Case Of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation (1st Case) (supra). The Apex Court After Holding That The Scheme Had Not Lapsed, Directed This Court To Decide The Matter On Merits. Even Otherwise, The Draft Scheme Dated 13.2.1986 Had Been Approved On 29.5.1993.
In The Case Of Phool Chand Gupta (supra), The Apex Court Had Quashed The Draft Scheme On The Ground Of Undue Delay. The Apex Court Has, In Paragraph 4 Of Its Report, Held As Follows:-
"4. It Is Not Denied That During The Period Of 20 Years Since The Publication Of The Draft Scheme There Has Been Lot Of Development In Or Around The Area Or Routes Covered By It. Hence It Can No Longer Be Said That The Proposal In The Draft Scheme Would Satisfy The Requirements Of S. 68-C Of The Act Which Provides That The Transport Service Which Is Proposed To Be Introduced In Respect Of Any Route Or Area To The Exclusion, Complete Or Partial, Of All Other Operators Should Be Efficient, Adequate, Economical And Properly Co-ordinated Service. This Court Has Given Substantial Reasons In Yogeshwar Jaiswal's Case (supra) For Quashing A Scheme Published Under S. 68-D Of The Act If There Has Been Unreasonable Delay In The Publication Of The Approved Scheme Under S. 68-D Of The Act. We Do Not Find That There Is Any Justification In The Circumstances Of This Case To Keep The Proceedings Pending Any Longer. The Fact That The Central Government And The State Government Of Rajasthan Have Not Given Their Approval/consent To The Scheme Cannot Be Considered As An Extenuating Circumstance."

In The Case Of Onkar Singh (supra), The Apex Court Had Quashed The Draft Scheme Issued Under Section 68-C Of The 1939 Act Which Was Published On 25.6.1960 On The Ground Of Not Being Approved After Long Undue Delay Of 25 Years, Leaving It Open To The State Government To Published A Fresh Scheme Under Section 68-C Of The 1939 Act.
The Aforesaid Decisions Of The Apex Court Quashing The Draft Scheme On Account Of Inordinate Delay In Approving The Scheme Would Not Be Applicable In The Present Case As The Apex Court In The Case Of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation (1st Case) (supra) Has Held That The Draft Scheme Had Not Lapsed. We Are, Therefore, Of The Considered Opinion That The Draft Scheme, As Approved On 29.5.1993, Cannot Be Quashed On The Ground Of Inordinate Delay. Moreover, The Scheme Had Already Been Approved On 29.5.1993.
Routes Overlapping/intersections - Whether Permit Can Be Granted :
In The Case Of Jagdish Chandra Gupta (supra) A Division Bench Of This Court Has Held That Any Route Or Area, Either Wholly Or Partly, Can Be Taken Over By The State Undertaking Under Any Scheme To Be Approved And Notified Under The Provisions Of Chapter IV-A Of The 1939 Act And It Confers A Monopoly On The State In Respect Of The Transport Service To The Partial Or Complete Exclusion Of All Others, Which Principle Is Applicable Even On A Route Which Overlaps On A Portion Of The Notified Route. It Is Not Open To The Regional Transport Authority To Increase The Strength Or Grant Fresh Permit On The Route A Part Of Which Overlapped The Notified Route. It Would Amount To Modification Of The Approved Scheme, Which Can Be Done Only In Accordance With The Provisions Contained In Section 68E Of The 1939 Act.
In The Case Of M/s Adarsh Travels Bus Service (supra), The Apex Court Has Held As Follows:-
"6. A Careful And Diligent Perusal Of S. 68C, S. 68D(3) And S. 68FF In The Light Of The Definition Of The Expression 'route' In S. 2(28A) Appears To Make It Manifestly Clear That Once A Scheme Is Published Under S. 68D In Relation To Any Area Or Route Or Portion Thereof, Whether To The Exclusion, Complete Or Partial Of Other Persons Or Otherwise, No Person Other Than The State Transport Undertaking May Operate On The Notified Area Or Notified Route Except As Provided In The Scheme Itself. A Necessary Consequence Of These Provisions Is That No Private Operator Can Operate His Vehicle On Any Part Or Portion Of A Notified Area Or Notified Route Unless Authorised So To Do By The Terms Of The Scheme Itself. He May Not Operate On Any Part Or Portion Of The Notified Route Or Area On The Mere Ground That The Permit As Originally Granted To Him Covered The Notified Route Or Area."

In The Case Of Sardar Surendra Singh (supra), A Division Bench Of This Court Has Held That Though The Circumstance That The Buses Of The Respondents Would Also Ply On The Portion Of The Route Was Only An Indirect Effect Or The Incidental Result Of The Order Passed Under Section 68-G(2) Of The 1939 Act. It Could Not, Therefore, Be Said That There Had Been, In Fact Or In The Eye Of Law, Any Modification Of The Scheme.
In The Case Of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation V. Omditya Verma And Others, AIR 2005 SC 2250, (2nd Case) The Apex Court Has Held As Follows:-
"12. Once A Scheme Is Notified It Prohibits The Plying Of Private Vehicle Except As Permitted By Scheme. Both Schemes Nowhere Permit Operation By Private Operators. This Is A Settled Proposition Of Law That In Notified Scheme Private Operator Can Operate Except Permitted By The Scheme. In This Connection Reference May Be Made To The Decision Of This Court In The Case Of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation V. Ashrafulla Khan And Ors. Reported In (2002) 2 SCC 560 Wherein Their Lordships After Considering Earlier Decisions Of The Constitution Benches Observed As Under :

"This Means That Even In Those Cases Where The Notified Route And The Route Applied For Run Over A Common Sector, The Curtailment By Virtue Of The Notified Scheme Would Be By Excluding That Portion Of The Route Or, In Other Words, The 'road' Common To Both. The Distinction Between 'route' As The Notional Line And 'road' As The Physical Track Disappears In The Working Of Chapter IV-A, Because You Cannot Curtail The Route Without Curtailing A Portion Of The Road, And The Ruling Of The Court To Which We Have Referred, Would Also Show That Even If The Route Was Different, The Area At Least Would Be The Same. The Ruling Of The Judicial Committee Cannot Be Made Applicable To The Motor Vehicles Act, Particularly Chapter IV-A, Where The Intention Is To Exclude Private Operators Completely From Running Over Certain Sectors Or Routes Vested In State Transport Undertakings. In Our Opinion, Therefore, The Appellants Were Rightly Held To Be Disentitled To Run Over Those Portions Of Their Routes Which Were Notified As Part Of The Scheme. Those Portions Cannot Be Said To Be Different Routes, But Must Be Regarded As Portions Of The Routes Of The Private Operators, From Which The Private Operators Stood Excluded Under Section 68-F(2) (C) (iii) Of The Act.

In S.Abdul Khader Saheb V. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal It Was Held By This Court That Once A Scheme Is For Total Exclusion Of Operation Of Stage Carriage Services By Operators Other Than The State Transport Undertaking, The Authorities Cannot Grant Permit Under Chapter IV Of The Motor Vehicles Act On Any Portion Of A Notified Route. In Mysore SRTC V. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal It Was Held That It Is Not Permissible To Grant Permit On A Portion Of A Notified Route Which Has An Effect To Ply A Stage Carriage On The Same Line Of The Notified Route Excepting An Intersection."

13. In View Of The Fact That The Route From Bijnor To Noorpur Was Notified Way Back In 1952, No Permit Could Have Been Issued In Pursuance Of The Resolution Dated June 14-15, 1993 And Likewise Under Notification Dated September 3, 1994 When The Route From Muzaffarnagar To Bijnor Had Been Notified, No Permit Could Have Been Granted On The Aforesaid Route As Both Schemes Are Of Total Exclusion. Therefore, In View Of The Law Laid Down By This Court In The Case Of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Supra), The Question No More Remains Res Integra And It Is Settled Principle Of Law That No Private Operators Could Be Permitted To Operate On A Notified Route Except By Modifying Scheme And After Making Provisions For The Same."

In The Case Of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (supra), The Apex Court Has Held As Follows:-
"Every Citizen In This Country Is Entitled To Carry On A Business In Transport For Hire Or Reward. However, It Is Subject To The Law Enacted In Respect Thereof. The Repealed Act Regulated The Business Of Plying Of Stage Carriages For Carrying Passengers. Chapter IVA Of The Repealed Act Also Provided For Nationalisation Of Road Transport Services. Section 68-C Falling In Chapter IVA Provided That The State Transport Undertaking May Prepare A Scheme For Purpose Of Providing An Efficient, Adequate, Economical And Properly Coordinated Road Transport Service To Be Run And Operated By The Undertaking In Relation To An Area Or Route Or Portion Thereof. The Scheme So Proposed May Be To The Complete Exclusion Or Partial, For Other Person. The Scheme So Framed Was Required To Be Published In The Official Gazette As To Invite Objections To The Proposed Scheme From Travelling Public Or The Existing Transport Operators. Sub-section (1) Of Section 68D Provided That Any Person Already Providing Transport Facilities On The Proposed Route By Any Means, Any Association Representing Persons Interested In Providing Road Transport Facilities, Any Local Authority Or Police Authority Within Whose Jurisdiction Any Part Of The Area Or Route Proposed To Be Covered By The Scheme Lies, May File Objections To The Proposed Scheme Before The State Government. Sub-section (2) Of The Section 68D Provided That The State Government After Considering The Objections May Approve Or Modify The Scheme. Sub-section (3) Of Section 68D Further Provided That The Scheme As Approved Or Modified, To Be Published In The Official Gazette And On Publication In The Gazette, The Scheme Shall Become Final And Shall Thereafter Be Called The Approved Scheme. Section 68F Empowered The Regional Transport Authority Or The State Transport Authority, As The Case May Be, To Grant To The State Transport Undertaking The Necessary Permit On Its Applying For The Same In Pursuance Of An Approved Scheme. Section 68FF Further Provided That Where A Scheme Has Been Published Under Sub-section (3) Of Section 68D In Respect Of Any Notified Area Or Notified Route, The State Transport Authority Or The Regional Transport Authority, As The Case May, Shall Not Grant Any Permit Except In Accordance With The Provisions Of The Scheme. The Consequences Of An Approved Scheme Under Chapter IVA Was That If The Scheme Was For Total Exclusion, No Person Other Than The State Transport Undertaking Can Operate On The Notified Route Or Area Except As Provided In The Scheme Itself. In Other Words, After The Approved Scheme Under Chapter IVA Came Into Force, Which Is For Total Exclusion, No Permit Can Be Granted To A Private Operator To Operate His Vehicle On Any Part Or Portion On A Notified Area Or Route Unless Permitted By The Terms Of The Scheme Itself."

It Has Further Held As Follows:-
"24. In Our Opinion There Is A Clear And Obvious Distinction Between An 'overlapping' And An 'intersection' For Purposes Of Chapter IVA Of The Repealed Act. In The Case Of An Overlapping A Stage Carriage Is To Ply On The Same Line Of Travel On A Portion Of A Notified Route And It Is Immaterial Whether It Is A Small Distance Of Four Or Five Kilometers Falling Within The Limits Of A Village Or Town. Whereas In The Case Of An Intersection A Non-notified Route Only Cuts Across A Notified Route For Onward Journey. It Is Only To Enable A Private Operator Plying On A Non-notified Route To A Non-notified Route To Cut Across A Notified Route. The Exceptions Sought To Be Made By Full Bench In The Form Of Municipal Limit Or Village Limit Is Totally Erroneous
and That The Same Defeats The Very Object Behind The Scheme Which Is For Total Exclusion Of Private Operation. The Consistent View Of This Court Has Through Out Been That The Scheme Is A Law And The Same Has To Be Preserved And Protected In Public Interest. Any Other View Taken Contrary To The Said View Would Amount To Violating The Integrity Of An Approved Scheme Under Section 68D Of The Repealed Act. Any Slight Deviation In The Scheme May Frustrate The Entire Scheme."

We Are, Therefore, Of The Considered Opinion That The Permits Cannot Be Granted On A Route Which Has Been Approved Under Section 68-D Of The 1939 Act. However, In Respect Of The Route Which Only Intersect The Notified/approved Route, Permit Can Be Granted.
Whether The Order Of The Hearing Authority Suffers From Any Infirmity :

In The Case Of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation (1st Case) (supra), The Apex Court Has Held As Follows:-
"16. Shri A. Singhvi Has Also Submitted That The UPSRTC Cannot Provide Transport Facility To The People In The Area And, Therefore, The Nationalization Of The Routes Is Not In Public Interest. During The Course Of Hearing An Additional Affidavit Has Been Filed By Shri Arvind Dikshit, One Of The Respondents In Civil Appeal Nos. 6350-51/ 2002 Wherein It Is Averred That Though The Population In The Area Has Greatly Increased In The Last About 15 Years Resulting In Proportionate Increase In Travelling Public, The Number Of Buses Being Operated By UPSRTC Has Considerably Gone Down And Many Of Such Buses Are Over-age And In Extremely Bad Condition. The UPSRTC Has Suffered A Loss Of Rs.282.75 Crores During The Period 1996-97 To 2000-01. It Has Thus Been Urged That The UPSRTC Is Not At All In A Position To Cater To The Needs Of The People In The Area By Providing An Efficient Transport Service. Learned Counsel Has Further Submitted That Nearly 500 Operators Who Have Been Granted Permits After 1-7-1989 Had Taken Loans From Banks And Finance Companies At A Very High Rate Of Interest To Purchase Buses And In Case The Scheme Of Nationalization Is Enforced Now, They Will Be Completely Thrown Out Of Business Landing Them In Serious Financial Trouble. The Drivers, Conductors And Other Staff Employed By Them Will Also Be Thrown Out Of Employment. An Affidavit In Reply Has Been Filed By Shri H.N. Aggarwal, General Manager, UPSRTC, Ghaziabad, Wherein It Is Averred That Though Earlier UPSRTC Was Sustaining Losses, But Subsequently Stringent Measures Have Been Adopted And In The Year 2002-03 It Earned A Profit Of Rs.92 Lakhs And In A Period Of Five Months I.e. From April To August, 2004, It Has Earned A Profit Of Rs.52.10 Crores. It Has Also Been Averred That 2262 New Buses Have Been Inducted By UPSRTC In The Last 2?? Years.

17. The Contention Sought To Be Raised By Shri Singhvi On The Basis Of The Additional Affidavit Filed By Shri Arvind Dikshit, Cannot Be Accepted For Several Reasons. As Discussed Earlier, The Draft Scheme Covering 39 Routes Was Published On 13-2-1986 And The Same Was Approved On 29-5-1993. In View Of The Decision In Gajraj Singh (supra), The Competent Authority Was Required To Hear Only Such Objections Which Were Filed Within 30 Days Of The Publication Of The Draft Scheme And The Approved Scheme As Notified On 29-5-1993 Was To Stand Modified Consistent With The Decision On The Objections. No Such Plea As Is Sought To Be Raised Now, Was Raised When The Cases Of Ram Krishna Verma (supra), Nisar Ahmad (supra) And Gajraj Singh (supra) Were Decided By This Court. It Has Been Also Submitted On Behalf Of The UPSRTC That It Did Not Put In Many Buses On The Routes In Question On Account Of Illegal Running Of Buses By Private Operators Who Have Been Granted Permits Subsequent To 1-7-1989 And After Such Illegal Running Of Buses Is Stopped, More Buses Will Be Inducted On The Routes. Therefore, The Contention Of Shri Singhvi That The Travelling Public Will Suffer Great Hardship If The Scheme Is Allowed To Stand On Account Of The Fact That UPSRTC Does Not Have Sufficient Number Of Buses To Run On The Routes In Question, Does Not Appear To Have Any Substance, In View Of The Clear Stand Of UPSRTC That It Is Now Making Profit And Will Induct More Buses On The Routes In Question. By Virtue Of Section 103(1-A) Of The Motor Vehicles Act (as Amended In The State Of U.P.), The UPSRTC Can Enter Into Agreements With Bus Owners To Ply Their Buses On The Nationalized Routes. Such An Arrangement May Be Beneficial To The Existing Private Operators. On Overall Consideration Of The Matter, We Are Clearly Of The Opinion That The Factors Sought To Be Highlighted By Shri Singhvi Cannot Be Taken Into Consideration To Have The Approved Scheme Annulled And Nullified."

It Has Further Held That Those Persons Who Were Granted Permits On 11.2.1991 After The High Court Held On 16.3.1990 That The Scheme Had Lapsed, They Are Not Entitled To Renewal Of Their Permits.
In The Case Of Yogeshwar Jaiswal (supra), The Apex Court Has Held As Follows:-
"4. The Other Legal Constraints Flowing From The Publication Of The Scheme Under Section 68C Of The Act Also Lead Us To The Same Conclusion. Section 68F(1D) Of The Act Provides That Save As Otherwise Provided In Sub-section (1A), Or Sub-section (10) Thereof, No Permit Shall Be Granted Or Renewed During The Period Intervening Between The Date Of Publication Under Section 68C Of Any Scheme And The Date Of Publication Of The Approved Or Modified Scheme, In Favour Of Any Person For Any Class Of Road Transport Service In Relation To An Area Or Route Or Portion Thereof Covered By Such Scheme. The Proviso To Sub-section (1D) Of Section 68F Of The Act, However, States Hat Where The Period Of Operation Of A Permit In Relation To Any Area, Route Or Portion Thereof Specified In A Scheme Published Under Section 68C Expires After Such Publication, Such Permit Shall Be Renewed For A Limited Period, But The Permit So Renewed Shall Cease To Be Effective On The Publication Of The Scheme Under Sub-section (3) Of Section 68D Of The Act. This Provision Overrides The Provisions In Section 58 Of The Act Which Provides For The Renewal Of Motor Vehicle Permits Issued Under Chapter IV Of The Act. As Regards The Issue Of Fresh Permits For Operating Motor Vehicles Of The Class Referred To In The Scheme In The Area Or On The Route In Question Between The Date Of Publication Of The Scheme Under Section 68C Of The Act And The Date Of Publication Of The Approved Or Modified Scheme Under Section 68D Of The Act, Sub-sections (1A) And (1C) Of Section 68F Of The Act Alone Have To Be Resorted To Sub-section (1A) Of Section 68F Gives Preference To The State Transport Undertaking Regarding The Issue Of Such Permits. It Provides That Where Any Scheme Has Been Published By A State Transport Undertaking Under Section 68C, That Undertaking May Apply For A Temporary Permit, In Respect Of Arty Area Or Route Or Portion Thereof Specified In The Said Scheme, For The Period Intervening Between The Date Of Publication Of The Scheme And The Date Of Publication Of The Approved Or Modified Scheme, And Where Such Application Is Made, The State Transport Authority Or The Regional Transport Authority, As The Case May Be, Shall, If It Is Satisfied That It Is Necessary To Increase, In The Public Interest The Number Of Vehicles Operating In Such Area Or Route Or Portion Thereof, Issue The Temporary Permit Prayed For By The State Transport Undertaking. Such Temporary Permit Shall Be Effective If The Scheme Is Published Under Sub-section (3) Of Section 68D Of The Act Until The Grant Of The Permit To The State Transport Undertaking Under Sub-section (1) Of Section 68F Of The Act Or If The Scheme Is Not Published Accordingly, Until The Expiration Of One Week From The Date On Which The Order Under Sub-section (2) Of Section 68D Of The Act Is Made. If No Application For The Temporary Permit Is Made Under Subsection (1A) Of Section 68F Of The Act By The State Transport Undertaking, The State Transport Authority Or The Regional Transport Authority, As The Case May Be, May Under Subsection (1C) Of Section 68F Of The Act Grant, Subject To Such Conditions As It May Think Fit, Temporary Permit To Any Person In Respect Of The Area Or Route Or Portion Thereof Specified In The Scheme And The Permit So Granted Shall Cease To Be Effective On The Issue Of A Permit To The State Transport Undertaking In Respect Of That Area Or Route Or Portion Thereof Subsections (1A) And (1C) Of Section 68F Of The Act Read Together Indicate That What Can Be Granted Under Either Of The Said Sub-sections Is Only A Temporary Permit Which Can Last During The Period Between The Date Of Publication Of The Scheme Under Section 68C Of The Act And The Date On Which The Order Under Section 68D Of The Act Is Made Subject To The Provisions Contained In Sub-section (1B) Of Section 68F Of The Act. The Life Of Such Temporary Permit Cannot Extend To An Unreasonably Long Period, As Even A Renewable Permit Issued Under Chapter IV Of The Act Is Subject To The Restrictions Contained In Section 58 Of The Act As Regards Its Duration And, Renewal And That A Temporary Permit Issued Under Section 62 Of The Act Cannot Be In Force In Any Case For More Than Four Months. Necessarily, Therefore, The State Government Is Required By Law To Pass Its Orders Under Section 68D Of The Act As Early As Possible. Delay In Performance Of Statutory Duties Amounts To An Abuse Of Process Of Law And Has To Be Remedied By The Court Particularly When The Public Interest Suffers Thereby. Hence If There Is An Unreasonably Long And Unexplained Delay In The State Government Passing Orders Under Station 68D Of The Act, The Court May Issue A Mandamus To The State Government To Dispose Of The Case Under Section 68D Of The Act Within A Specified Time Or May In An Appropriate Case Even Issue A Writ In The Nature Of Certiorari Quashing The Scheme And A Writ In The Nature Of Prohibition Directing The State Government Not To Proceed With The Consideration Of The Scheme Published Under Section 68C Of The Act Because Section 68D Does Not Confer An Unfettered Discretion On The State Government To Deal With The Case As It Likes. The Power Under Section 68D Has To Be Exercised Having Due Regard To The Public Interest."

In The Case Of Anwar (supra), The Apex Court, After Analyzing The Provisions Of Chapter IV-A Of The 1939 Act, Has Held That On The Publication Of The Scheme Under Section 68-C Of The Act Any Person Who Is Aggrieved By The Proposed Introduction Of The Scheme Is Entitled To File His Representations And Objections And To Appear Before The Hearing Authority Under Section 68-D Of The Act And Make His Submissions In Support Of His Objections Or Representations. Sub-section (ii) Of Section 68-D Of The 1939 Act Authorises The Hearing Authority To Approve The Scheme Either With Or Without Modification. By Necessary Implication It Can Also Reject A Scheme If It Feels That It Is Not Necessary To Introduce The Scheme. When The Scheme Is Approved Or Modified Under Section 68-D Of The Act, Such Approved Or Modified Scheme Is Required To Be Published In The Official Gazette And On Such Publication It Becomes Final. It Is Thus Seen That Parliament Has Created A Special Machinery By The Provisions Contained In Chapter IVA Of The Act For Bringing Into Force An Approved Or Modified Scheme Which Would Have The Effect Of Excluding Completely Or Partially Other Persons From Operating Motor Service Vehicles On Any Route Or In Any Area. After The Scheme Becomes Final, As Provided In Sub-section (iii) Of Section 68-D Of The Act, The Transport Authorities Concerned Can Issue Permits Only In Accordance With The Scheme And The Other Provisions Contained In Chapter IVA Of The Act. The Apex Court In H. C. Narayanappa V. State Of Mysore, (1960) 3 SCR 742 At Page 753 : (AIR 1960 SC 1073 At P. 1079) Has Observed That The Scheme Approved Or Modified And Published Under S. 68-D Of The Act May Properly Be Regarded As 'law', Within The Meaning Of Art. 19(6) Of The Constitution, Made By The State Excluding Private Operators From Notified Routes Or Notified Areas, And Immune From The Attack That It Infringes The Fundamental Right Guaranteed By Art. 19(1)(g) Of The Constitution. It Has Further Held That The Jurisdiction Of The Civil Court Is Excluded In Respect Of Matters Which Are To Be Dealt With By The Hearing Authority Under Section 68-D Of The 1939 Act.
In The Case Of A.P.State Road Transport Corporation V. Regional Transport Authority And Another, (2005) 4 SCC 391, The Constitution Bench Of The Apex Court Has Held That The Object Of The Scheme For Nationalising The Entire Transport Service Is An Effort Being Made To Provide Better Services To The Commuter At Cheaper Cost And It Is For The State Government To Consider What Is Suitable For Public Services. The State Government Has The Power To Modify A Scheme In Case Of Need. After All The Schemes Are Intended For The Benefit Of Public And, If Any Step Is Required To Be Taken For The Purposes, The State Government Can Always Do So By Modifying The Scheme And The 1988 Act Permits Modification Of The Scheme. The Apex Court Has Rejected The Arguments That The Town Services Will Suffer Resulting In Inconvenience To The Public By Nationalising The Entire Service.
In The Case Of M.Madan Mohan Rao And Others V. Union Of India And Others, AIR 2002 SC 2647, The Apex Court, After Considering The Provisions Of Sections 99 And 100 Of The 1988 Act And Section 68-C And 68-D Of The 1939 Act, Has Held As Follows:-
"23. On Reading The Aforementioned Statutory Provisions Together It Is Clear That The Objection Which May Be Raised By Any Person To The Proposed Nationalization Scheme Must Relate To The Matters About Which The State Government Is Required To Form An Opinion Under The Statute I.e. For The Purpose Of Providing An Efficient, Adequate, Economical And Proper Transport Service. It Is Necessary In The Public Interest That The Road Transport Services On The Routes Should Be Run And Operated By The State Transport Undertakings To The Complete Or Partial Exclusion Of Other Persons. Therefore, It Follows That The Objection To Be Filed By An Objector Should Be Related To Only These Relevant Factors And He Is Not Entitled To Raise Any Other Objection Which Is Irrelevant And Extraneous To The Provisions Of The Statute."

In The Case Of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), The Apex Court Has Held That When A Statutory Functionary Makes An Order Based On Certain Grounds, Its Validity Must Be Judged By The Reasons So Mentioned And Cannot Be Supplemented By Fresh Reasons In The Shape Of Affidavit Or Otherwise. Otherwise, An Order Bad In The Beginning May, By The Time It Comes To Court On Account Of A Challenge, Get Validated By Additional Grounds Later Brought Out.
In The Case Of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan V. State Of Gujarat, AIR 1997 SC 3400, The Apex Court, In Paragraphs 25 To 30 Of Its Report, Has Held As Follows:-
"25. This Principle Was Reiterated In Tata Cellular V. Union Of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 : (1994) 6 SCC 651, In Which It Was, Inter Alia, Laid Down That The Court Does Not Sit As A Court Of Appeal But Merely Reviews The Manner In Which The Decision Was Made Particularly As The Court Does Not Have The Expertise To Correct The Administrative Decision. If A Review Of The Administrative Decision Is Permitted, It Will Be Substituting Its Own Decision Which Itself May Be Fallible. The Court Pointed Out That The Duty Of The Court Is To Confine Itself To The Question Of Legality. Its Concern Should Be :

1. Whether A Decision-making Authority Exceeded Its Powers?
2. Committed An Error Of Law;
3. Committed A Breach Of The Rules Of Natural Justice;
4. Reached A Decision Which No Reasonable Tribunal Would Have Reached; Or
5. Abused Its Powers.

26. In This Case, Lord Denning Was Quoted As Saying :
"Parliament Often Entrusts The Decision Of A Matter To A Specified Person Or Body, Without Providing For Any Appeal. It May Be A Judicial Decision, Or A Quasi-judicial Decision, Or An Administrative Decision. Sometimes Parliament Says Its Decision Is To Be Final. At Other Times It Says Nothing About It. In All These Cases The Courts Will Not Themselves Take The Place Of The Body Of Whom Parliament Has Entrusted The Decision. The Courts Will Not Themselves Embark On A Rehearing Of The Matter : See Healey V. Minister Of Health, (1955) 1 QB 221."

27. Lord Denning Further Observed As Under :
"If The Decision-making Body Is Influenced By Considerations Which Ought Not Influence It; Or Fails To Take Into Account Matters Which It Ought To Take Into Account, The Court Will Interfere : See Padfield V. Minister Of Agriculture, Fisheries And Food, 1968 AC 997."

28. In Sterling Computers Ltd. V. M/s. M And N Publications Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 51 : (1993) 1 SCR 81 : (1993) 1 SCC 445, It Was Pointed Out That While Exercising The Power Of Judicial Review, The Court Is Concerned Primarily As To Whether There Has Been Any Infirmity In The Decision-making Process? In This Case, The Following Passage From Professor Wade's Administrative Law Was Relied Upon :

"The Doctrine That Powers Must Be Exercised Reasonably Has To Be Reconciled With The No Less Important Doctrine That The Court Must Not Usurp The Discretion Of The Public Authority Which Parliament Appointed To Take The Decision. Within The Bounds Of Legal Reasonableness Is The Area In Which The Deciding Authority Has Genuinely Free Discretion. If It Passes Those Bounds, It Acts Ultra Vires. The Court Must Therefore Resist The Temptation To Draw The Bounds Too Tightly, Merely According To Its Own Opinion. It Must Strive To Apply An Objective Standard Which Leaves To The Deciding Authority The Full Range Of Choices Which Legislature Is Presumed To Have Intended."

29. It May Be Pointed Out That This Principle Was Also Applied By Professor Wade To Quasi-judicial Bodies And Their Decisions. Relying Upon The Decision In The Queen V. Justices Of London, (1895) 1 QB 214, Professor Wade Laid Down The Principle That Where A Public Authority Was Given Power To Determine A Matter, Mandamus Would Not Lie To Compel It To Reach Some Particular Decision.

30. A Division Bench Of This Court Comprising Of Kuldip Singh And B. P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ. In U. P. Financial Corporation V. M/s. Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1993 SC 1435 : (1993) 2 SCR 149 : (1993) 2 SCC 299, Observed As Under (Para 11 Of AIR) :

"The Obligation To Act Fairly On The Part Of The Administrative Authorities Was Evolved To Ensure The Rule Of Law And To Prevent Failure Of Justice. This Doctrine Is Complementary To The Principles Of Natural Justice Which The Quasi-Judicial Authorities Are Bound To Observe. It Is True That The Distinction Between A Quasi-judicial And The Administrative Action Has Become Thin, As Pointed Out By This Court As Far Back As 1970 In A. K. Kraipak V. Union Of India, AIR 1970 SC 150. Even So The Extent Of Judicial Scrutiny/judicial Review In The Case Of Administrative Action Cannot Be Larger Than In The Case Of Quasi-judicial Action. If The High Court Cannot Sit As An Appellate Authority Over The Decisions And Orders Of Quasi-judicial Authorities It Follows Equally That It Cannot Do So In The Case Of Administrative Authorities. In The Matter Of Administrative Action, It Is Well-known, More Than One Choice Is Available To The Administrative Authorities; They Have A Certain Amount Of Discretion Available To Them. They Have "a Right To Choose Between More Than One Possible Course Of Action Upon Which There Is Room For Reasonable People To Hold Differing Opinions As To Which Is To Be Preferred" (Lord Diplock In Secretary Of State For Education V. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, 1977 AC 1014 At 1064). The Court Cannot Substitute Its Judgment For The Judgment Of Administrative Authorities In Such Cases. Only When The Action Of The Administrative Authority Is So Unfair Or Unreasonable That No Reasonable Person Would Have Taken That Action, Can The Court Intervene."

The Aforesaid Decision Has Been Followed Subsequently By The Apex Court In The Case Of EPURU Sudhakar V. Government Of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 8 SCC 161, And The Same Principles Have Again Been Reiterated.
From The Aforesaid Decisions, The Following Principles Emerges:-
1. If A Draft Scheme Has Been Notified Under Section 68-C Of The 1939 Act, It May Be Either For Total Exclusion Of All The Private Operators Or For Partial Exclusion;
2. Objections To Such A Notified Scheme Can Be Filed Only By Three Classes Of Persons Mentioned In Section 68-D, I.e., (i) An Existing Operator, (ii) Any Association Representing Persons Interested In The Provisions Of Road Transport Facilities, Recognised By The State Government; And (iii) Any Local Authority Or Police Authority Within Whose Jurisdiction The Route Falls;
3. The State Government Is The Best Person To Consider And Take Into Account The Interest Of The Travelling Public;
4. The Loss To The Private Operators Cannot Be A Ground For Modification Of The Notified Scheme;
5. Even After The Repeal Of The 1939 Act, In Respect Of The Scheme Notified Under The Said Act, Proceedings For Finalisation Of The Scheme Can Be Taken Under The Provisions Of The New Act, I.e., Clause (e) Of Sub-section (2) Of Section 297 Of The 1988 Act;
6. The Proceedings Have To Be Continued In Accordance With The Provisions Of Section 100 Of The 1988 Act;
7. The Order Of The Hearing Authority Which Is A Quasi Judicial Authority, Can Be Challenged On Very Limited Ground, Namely,
a. Whether A Decision-making Authority Exceeded Its Powers?
b. Committed An Error Of Law;
c. Committed A Breach Of The Rules Of Natural Justice;
d. Reached A Decision Which No Reasonable Tribunal Would Have Reached; Or
e. Abused Its Powers.
8. The Draft Scheme Notified On 13.2.1986 Stood Approved With The Publication Made On 29.5.1993 Which Would Stand Modified In Terms Of The Decision Upon The Objections Filed By The Existing Operators Pursuant To The Orders Passed By The Hearing Authority;
9. Those Persons Who Have Been Granted Temporary Permits After This Court Has Held The Scheme As Having Lapsed In The Year 1990, On 16.3.1990, Are Not Entitled For Its Renewal; And
10. The Traveling Public Will Suffer Great Hardship If The Scheme Is Allowed To Stand On Account Of The Fact That The Corporation Does Not Have Sufficient Number Of Buses To Run On The Routes In Question, Cannot Be The Criteria For Holding That It Cannot Provide Transport Facility To The People In Area And, Therefore, Nationalisation Of Routes Is Not In Public Interest.
Applying The Principles Laid Down In The Aforesaid Cases To The Facts Of The Present Case, We Find That Even Though The Hearing Authority While Passing The Order On 3.11.2001, Had Not Dealt With The Specific Objections Raised By The Existing Operators, He Has Given A General Finding. The Objections Which Were Raised On Behalf Of The Objectors And Considered By The Hearing Authority, As Reproduced In The Order, Is Given Below :-
"The Main Objections Raised By The Objectors Of 38 Routes Are That UPSRTC Has Continuously Been Suffering Huge Losses, Thus, It Is Not In A Position To Cater The Needs Of The Travelling Public. It Is Also Alleged That U.P.S.R.T.C. Has Insufficient No. Of Buses In Its Fleet. Hence It Will Not Be Possible For U.P.S.R.T.C. To Provide Efficient, Adequate, Economical And Properly Coordinated Transport Services To The Travelling Public.

It Has Been Also Pointed Out That Since The Scheme Was Framed In The Year 1986 And During Last So Many Years There Has Been Tremendous Increase In Population, No. Of New Institutions Have Come Up Besides Increase In Number Of Tehsils, Blocks And Districts. The Need Of The Travelling Public Has Increased Manifold. Even The Public Representatives Mainly M.Ps., M.L.As, Chairman Of Various Local Bodies, Principals Of Colleges Etc. Have Recommended The Continuation And Satisfaction Over The Services Provided By Private Operators."

The Objections Of The Corporation Is Also Being Reproduced:-
"On The Other Hand UPSRTC Has Denied All The Above Submissions And Has Contended That The Scheme Framed Is In Public Interest And It Shall Provide Efficient, Economical, Adequate And Coordinated Services To The Travelling Public. The UPSRTC Has Also Denied That It Does Not Possess Sufficient Number Of Vehicles."

After Reproducing The Objections Of The Parties, The Hearing Authority Has Considered The Factum Of The Corporation Having Obtained Lesser Number Of Permits Than What Was Proposed In The 1986 Scheme For Running The Buses And Taking Into Consideration The Above Fact, The Hearing Authority Has Permitted All Existing Private Operators Who Were Plying Their Vehicles On 13.2.1986, To Ply Cojointly With The Corporation On All Routes Except The Routes Mentioned At Serial Nos.2 To 6 And 18. The Conclusion Drawn By The Hearing Authority Is Reproduced Below:-
"From Bare Perusal Of The Facts Mentioned In Above Paras It Is Clearly That UPSRTC Has Obtained Permits On Various Routes But Has Been Plying Only On Some Routes, Which Are Most Insufficient From The Proposed Services Provided In The Scheme Dt.13.2.86. It Is Also Clear From The Records/evidences That UPSRTC Does Not Possess Sufficient Number Of Vehicles, And If The Proposed Scheme Of 13.2.86, Which Is Of Total Exclusion Of Private Operators Is Finalised, The Public Shall Suffer Great Inconvenience, As The U.P.S.R.T.C. Shall Not Be Able To Achieve Its Objectives And Fulfil The Needs Of The Local Travelling Public.

Hence, In The Circumstances It Is Not In The Public Interest To Bring All The Routes Under Chapter VI Of M.V.Act, As The Public Interest Is Paramount. However, Considering The Services Of U.P.S.R.T.C. Being Provided On Some Routes, It Shall Be In The Interest Of Public And Also In The Interest Of UPSRTC To Allow Them To Continue Plying On The Routes Alongwith The Existing Private Operators, Who Have Been Plying On The Date Of Promulgation Of The Scheme Dt.13.2.86. Thereafter The Objections Filed By Private Operators And The Objectors To The Scheme Dt.13.2.86 Deserve To Be Partly Allowed On The Following Terms.
ORDER
Accordingly, Routes Mentioned At S.No.2 To 6, Which Are Part Of The Route Mentioned At S.No.1 I.e. Delhi Saharanpur Route, Has Already Become Finally The Judgment Of Hon'ble Supreme Court In The Matter Of R.K.Verma Vs. State Of U.P. Therefore, No Further Directions Are Required For These Routes As They Are Party Of Delhi - Saharanpur And Route Mentioned At Sl.No.18 For Which Scheme Dt.29.5.93 Has Already Become Final.

The Proposed Scheme Dt.13.2.86 Finalised On 29.5.93 Is Modified In Public Interest To The Extent That On Routes Mentioned Of The Said Scheme Dt.13.2.86 (except The Routes Mentioned At S.No.2 To 6 And Sl.No.18) Are To Be Plied Co-jointly By UPSRTC And The Private Operators Plying Prior To 13.2.86 (Details Of Permit Nos. Are Given In Annexure -I, Enclosed With This Order). Similarly All The Private Operators Plying Prior To 13.2.86 On The Overlapping Portions Of These Routes Shall Also Ply Cojointly With U.P.S.R.T.C. On The Overlapping Portions Of These Routes. (Details Of Permit Holders Given In Annexure - II.

Considering The Public Interest, The Private Operators Plying On The Inter-state Routes Prior To 3.2.86, Portions Of Which Fall In The State Of U.P. Be Cojointly Plied With U.P.S.R.T.C. (Details Of Permit Nos. Given In Annexure - III).

On Rest Of Routes Proposal In Scheme Dt. 13.2.86, Finalised On 29.5.93, Only U.P.S.R.T.C. Shall Ply Its Buses Alongwith The Permit Holders Having Their Permits On Or Before 13.2.86 (Details Of Routes Given In Annexure - IV)."

The Approach Of The Hearing Authority Appears To Be In The Teeth Of The Decision Of The Apex Court In The Case Of Gajraj Singh (supra) And U.P.State Road Transport Corporation (1st Case) (supra). In The Case Of Gajraj Singh (supra), The Apex Court Has Noticed The Fact That On All The 39 Routes, The Corporation Is Operating Buses Ever Since 1993 And For That Purpose, It Has Made Substantial Investment By Putting The Buses On The Road And Recruiting The Employees To Continue Overseeing And Maintain Operation On Such Nationalised Routes.
In The Case Of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation (1st Case) (supra), The Apex Court Has Clearly Repelled The Contention That The Corporation Cannot Provide Transport Facility To The People In The Area And, Therefore, The Nationalisation Of The Routes Is Not In The Public Interest. It Has Taken Note Of The Fact That The Corporation Did Not Put In Many Buses On The Routes In Question On Account Of Illegal Running Of Buses By Private Operators Who Have Been Granted Permits Subsequent To 1.7.1989 And After Such Illegal Running Of Buses Is Stopped, More Buses Will Be Inducted On The Routes. The Contention Advanced By The Private Operators That The Travelling Public Will Suffer Great Hardship If The Scheme Is Allowed To Stand On Account Of The Fact That The Corporation Does Not Have Sufficient Number Of Buses To Run On The Routes In Question, Was Held By The Apex Court To Be Without Any Substance, In View Of The Clear Stand Of The Corporation That It Is Now Making Profit And Will Induct More Business On The Routes In Question. The Apex Court Has Also Taken Into Consideration The Provisions Of Section 103(1A) Of The 1988 Act, As Amended In The State Of U.P., Whereunder The Corporation Can Enter Into Agreements With The Bus Owners To Ply Their Buses On The Nationalised Routes Which Arrangements Will Be Beneficial To The Existing Private Operators. The Apex Court Has Further Held That On Over All Consideration Of The Matter, The Factors Sought To Be Highlighted By The Private Operators, Cannot Be Taken Into Consideration To Have The Approved Scheme Annulled And Nullified.
From The Objections Which Were Raised Before The Hearing Authority, Reproduced Above, It Is Seen That The Main Objections Of The Private Operators Was Regarding Inability Of The Corporation To Cater To The Need Of The Travelling Public On Account Of Suffering Huge Losses And Insufficient Number Of Buses In Its Fleet, Thus, Not In A Position To Provide Sufficient, Adequate, Economical And Properly Coordinated Transport Service To The Travelling Public. These Considerations, As Already Stated Hereinbefore, Have Not Been Accepted By The Apex Court In The Case Of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation (1st Case) (supra) For Annulling Or Nullifying The Scheme. It May Be Mentioned Here That The Court Vide Orders Dated 11.7.2006 And 7.11.2006 Had Directed The State Respondents To Produce The Record Of The Hearing Authority Including The Objections Preferred By The Existing Operators, Which Record Has Been Produced. The Court Has Perused The Objections Filed By The Existing Operators And Finds That Even Though In Some Of The Objections Development Subsequent To The Date Of The Draft Scheme, I.e., Much After 13.2.1986, Has Been Stated, Yet In All The Objections Generally The Plea Of Public Inconvenience Or Personal Loss Has Been Taken. There Being No Other Objection To The Approved Scheme Dated 29.5.1993 By Any Of The Existing Operators, In Our Considered Opinion, The Hearing Authority Was Not Justified In Modifying The Approved Scheme Dated 29.5.1993. The Hearing Authority Has Completely Misdirected Himself While Modifying The Approved Scheme Dated 29.5.1993. The Order Of The Hearing Authority Insofar As It Modifies The Approved Scheme Dated 29.5.1993 Cannot Be Sustained And Is Hereby Set Aside.
The Question Still Remains As To Whether The State Government Or The Authority Had The Power To Grant Temporary Permits During The Period In Which The Draft Scheme Was Published On 13.2.1986 Till The Scheme Was Approved On 29.5.1993 And Thereafter. The Provision Of Section 68-F(1-C) Permits The Authorities To Issue Temporary Permits To Any Person, Where The Corporation Has Not Applied For Grant Of Temporary Permit. Under Section 68-FF Of The 1939 Act, If After The Scheme Has Been Approved Under Section 68-D, The State Transport Undertaking Does Not Apply For A Permit, Temporary Permit Can Be Issued To The Private Operators. However, The Life Of Temporary Permits Issued Under Sub-section (1-C) Of Section 68-F Is Only Upto The Time Of Issue Of Permit To The State Transport Undertaking Pending Publication Of The Approved Scheme And After The Publication Of The Approved Scheme, If Any Temporary Permit Has Been Issued, It Shall Cease To Be Effective On Issuance Of A Permit To The State Transport Undertaking. The Submission Of Sri S.P.Kesarwani, Learned Standing Counsel, That The Act Contemplates Publication Of Only One Scheme Which, In The Present Case, Has Not Been Published So Far, Is Not Correct. The Approved Scheme Has Been Published On 29.5.1993 And Was Subject To Such Modification As The Hearing Authority May Direct. It Is Not Correct To Say That The Authorities Were Well Within Their Right To Issue Temporary Permits Treating The Scheme As Unapproved One.
We Further Find From The Order Of The Hearing Authority That The Corporation Had Applied For Issuance Of Permit After The Draft Scheme Was Published And After The Scheme Was Approved. Thus, Temporary Permits Could Not Have Been Issued.
The Apex Court In The Case Of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation (1st Case) (supra) Has Held That The Holders Of Temporary Permits Granted After The Draft Scheme Was Published And Even After The Scheme Was Approved On 29.5.1993, Are Not Entitled For Renewal.
It May Be Mentioned Here That The Existing Permit Holders Who Had Been Granted Permit Before 13.2.1986, I.e., Before The Date Of Publication Of The Draft Scheme, Whose Permits Are Going To Be Affected By The Approved Scheme Of 29.5.1993, Are Only Entitled To Compensation In Terms Of The Provisions Of The Act.
In View Of The Foregoing Discussions, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9332 Of 2002 Succeeds And Is Allowed. All The Remaining Writ Petitions Fail And Are Dismissed With Costs Payable To The Corporation Which We Assess At Rs.5,000/- Payable By Each Of The Petitioners Individually

Go to Navigation