After a number of adjournments the Hearing Authority empowered under section 68 of the Act was able to companyclude the proceedings by April 26, 1979 and it is alleged that the Authority in the companyrse of the hearing ob served that it would finalise and approve the scheme by 21.5.1979.
The learned Civil Judge declined to grant the request of the petitioner and fixed the suit for arguments on November 8, 1985.
The State Transport Undertaking, i.e., the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut were impleaded as the defendents in the suit.
L one of the pleas raised in their written statement was that the suit was number maintainable in a civil companyrt for the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner.
Before the Hearing Authority companyld give its approval to the scheme under section 68 D of Act, the petitioner filed original Suit No.
During the pendency of the suit the petitioner filed an application before the Civil Court for staying the hearing of the suit till the disposal of a special leave petition before this Court since the question relating to the maintainability of suits of similar nature was involved in the said special leave petition.
That petition was also dismissed.
Aggrieved by the order of the Civil Judge, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr.
This special leave petition is filed against the order of the High Court of Allahabad.
8001 of 1986 From the Judgment and order dated 8.7.1986 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No.
145 of 1979 on the file of the Civil Judge, Bulandshahr for a declaration that the above scheme published under section 68 C of the Act was illegal, void and ultra vires and for an injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from finalising and approving the scheme and acting upon it after it was published.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Civil No.
Against the order of Additional District Judge, the petitioner filed a writ petition.
That revision petition was dismissed.
The defendants companytested the suit.
R. Lalit and T. Sridharan for the Petitioner.
The petitioner filed his objections to the said scheme along with several others.
The petitioner is the holder of a permit issued under Chapter IV of the Act to ply a stage carriage on Bulandshahr Siana Garh Bugrasi Brijghat Bhasians Shambhaoli Babugarh Jadol Jahangirabad route in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MISRA, J. The short question which arises for companysideration in this case is whether a suit is maintainable in a civil companyrt for an injunction restraining the Hearing Authority appointed under section 68 D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 hereinafter referred to as the Act from proceedings with the hearing of matters under that provision and from approving a scheme published under section 68 C of the Act either with or without any modification.
The State Transport Undertaking of the State of Uttar Pradesh published a scheme dated March 7, 1975 in the P. Gazette dated April 5, 1975 under section 68 C of the Act pro posing to operate its stage carriages to the exclusion of all private operators on the route referred to above.
9664 of 1986.
