K.T. Dharamandraiah. Vs. The Regional Transport Authority & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4453/86.
(From the Judgment & Order dated 28-10-1985 of the High Court of Karnataka in WA No. 1370/79)
(From the Judgment & Order dated 28-10-1985 of the High Court of Karnataka in WA No. 1370/79)
Petitioner: K.T. Dharamandraiah.
Respondent: The Regional Transport Authority & Ors.
Apeal: Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4453/86.
(From the Judgment & Order dated 28-10-1985 of the High Court of Karnataka in WA No. 1370/79)
(From the Judgment & Order dated 28-10-1985 of the High Court of Karnataka in WA No. 1370/79)
Judges: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH & K.N. SINGH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 17, 1987
Appearances:
Mr. S.S. Javali and Mr. R. Ramachandran, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. K.R. Nagaraja and Mr. R.S. Hegde, Advocates for the Respondent.
Head Note:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939:
Sections 68C, 68D, 68F(1A) and 68F(1C) – Draft scheme published by State Transport Undertaking under Section 68C in the year 1979 but not yet approved under Section 68D – Draft scheme quashed – Persons who obtained permits under Section 68F(1A) or 68F(1C) as a consequence of the publication of the draft scheme to ply their services till 31-08-1987.
Cases Reffered:
1.Shri Chand v. Government of U.P. Lucknow & Ors. (1985) 4 SCC 169.
2.Phool Chand Gupta v. Regional Transport Authority Ujjain and others, (1985) 4 SCC 190.
2.Phool Chand Gupta v. Regional Transport Authority Ujjain and others, (1985) 4 SCC 190.
JUDGEMENT:
1. Special leave granted.
2. The appellant was an applicant for a temporary permit to ply a stage carriage on the route Chitradurga to Davanagere and back under section 68 (F) (1C) of the Motor Vehicles Act hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. It is not necessary to set out the entire history of this case. When the matter came to the High Court, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and of the Tribunal and remanded the case to the Regional Transport Authority to consider the question whether there was any need for additional service on the route in question. The necessity for applying under section 68F(1C) arose on account of a scheme published under section 68C of the Act by the State Transport Undertaking of the State of Karnataka in the year 1979 in respect of the said route. When this matter came before us, we called upon the State Transport Undertaking to show cause why the draft Scheme should not be quashed on account of the inordinate delay in not publishing the approved scheme under Section 68D of the Act. Admittedly, the scheme has not yet been approved under section 68D of the Act. No satisfactory explanation has been given by the State Transport Undertaking for not finalising the Scheme till now, as contemplated by law. We, therefore, following the decision of this Court in Shri Chand v. Government of U.P. Lucknow & Ors. (1985) 4 SCC 169 and Phool Chand Gupta v. Regional Transport Authority, Ujjain and Others, (1985) 4 SCC 190 quash the draft Scheme. We, however, make it clear that the State Transport Undertaking or any other person who has obtained permits under Section 68F(1A) or Section 68F(1C) as the case may be, as a consequence of the publication of the draft scheme referred to above may continue to operate their services until expiry of 31-08-1987, provided they are plying their services today. We, however, reserve liberty to the State Transport Undertaking either to initiate a fresh scheme under Section 68C of the Act or to proceed with any other draft scheme which has already been published in respect of the route in question. Since we have quashed the scheme, the question of considering any application under section 68F(1C) as a consequence of the publication of the draft scheme which is quashed by this order does not arise.
3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Appeal dismissed.
2. The appellant was an applicant for a temporary permit to ply a stage carriage on the route Chitradurga to Davanagere and back under section 68 (F) (1C) of the Motor Vehicles Act hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. It is not necessary to set out the entire history of this case. When the matter came to the High Court, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and of the Tribunal and remanded the case to the Regional Transport Authority to consider the question whether there was any need for additional service on the route in question. The necessity for applying under section 68F(1C) arose on account of a scheme published under section 68C of the Act by the State Transport Undertaking of the State of Karnataka in the year 1979 in respect of the said route. When this matter came before us, we called upon the State Transport Undertaking to show cause why the draft Scheme should not be quashed on account of the inordinate delay in not publishing the approved scheme under Section 68D of the Act. Admittedly, the scheme has not yet been approved under section 68D of the Act. No satisfactory explanation has been given by the State Transport Undertaking for not finalising the Scheme till now, as contemplated by law. We, therefore, following the decision of this Court in Shri Chand v. Government of U.P. Lucknow & Ors. (1985) 4 SCC 169 and Phool Chand Gupta v. Regional Transport Authority, Ujjain and Others, (1985) 4 SCC 190 quash the draft Scheme. We, however, make it clear that the State Transport Undertaking or any other person who has obtained permits under Section 68F(1A) or Section 68F(1C) as the case may be, as a consequence of the publication of the draft scheme referred to above may continue to operate their services until expiry of 31-08-1987, provided they are plying their services today. We, however, reserve liberty to the State Transport Undertaking either to initiate a fresh scheme under Section 68C of the Act or to proceed with any other draft scheme which has already been published in respect of the route in question. Since we have quashed the scheme, the question of considering any application under section 68F(1C) as a consequence of the publication of the draft scheme which is quashed by this order does not arise.
3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Appeal dismissed.
