The hearing of the objections companyld number take place on account of interim orders passed in various suits, which were filed by some of these operators, and as a result, the scheme remained pending for over 20 years.
1616 of 1968 decided on 3.4.1968 Jeewan Nath Wahal vs. STAT .
The scheme number only companyered Sharanpur Shahadara Delhi route, but also 38 other routes.
The companypetent authority was directed to approve the draft scheme within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the judgment and publish the same in the Gazette.
The scheme was challenged by a number of operators and the High Court by its judgments dated 31.10.1961 and 7.2.1962 upheld the scheme as against 50 operators, but quashed the same as against 32 and 18 operators who had filed two groups of writ petitions on the ground that they should be afforded an opportunity of hearing.
1.7.1989 repealing the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
As discussed earlier, the draft scheme companyering 39 routes was published on 13.2.1986 and the same was approved on 29.5.1993.
The appeal against the decision of the High Court was allowed by this Court on 31.3.1992 and the grant of permits under Section 80 of 1988 Act to the respondents private operators of Civil Appeal No.
Objections were filed against the scheme and before they companyld be finally decided, Motor Vehicles Act 1988 for short 1988 Act came into force w.e.f.
In view of the decision in Gajraj Singh supra , the companypetent 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 numberified on 29.5.1993 was to stand modified companysistent with the decision on the objections.
of P. The UPSRTC thereafter published a fresh scheme companyering in all 39 routes which was published on 13.2.1986 under Section 68 C of the old Act.
The companytention 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.
Finally, the matter again came up to this Court and a two Judge Bench quashed the scheme by the judgment dated 23.8.1985 on the ground that the delay of 26 years in disposing of the objections had resulted in violation of Articles 14 and 19 1 g of the Constitution.
1198 of 1992 and others on the respective routes, parts or portions of the nationalized route of the draft scheme dated 13.2.1986 was quashed.
A No./2004 SLP Civil No.
It was, however, left open to State Transport Undertaking to publish a fresh draft scheme if it was necessary to do so.
In appeal, the judgment of the High Court was upheld by this Court in Civil Appeal No.
19034/2003 P. MATHUR, J. Civil Appeal No.
21557/2002 C.A No/2004 SLP Civil No.
6341/2002 This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment dated 23.7.2002 of Allahabad High Court by which the scheme dated 13.2.1986 published under Section 68 C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the approved scheme published on 29.5.1993 was quashed.
In order to appreciate the companytentions raised by learned companynsel for the parties, it is necessary to mention the essential facts, as the case has a long history.
6342 6343/2002, 6344 6345/2002, 6347 6348/2002, 6350 6351/2002, 6353 6354/2002, 8575/2002, 4196/2003, 5258/2003.
The Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation for short UPSRTC prepared a draft scheme to nationalize Saharanpur Shahdara Delhi route and the same was published on 29.9.1959 in accordance with Section 68 C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 hereinafter referred to as the old Act .
with C.A. Nos.
The judgment is reported in 1985 4 SCC 169 Shri Chand vs. Govt.
The UPSRTC preferred a writ petition but the High Court also took the view that the scheme had lapsed and accordingly upheld the order of the companypetent authority and dismissed the writ petition.
Some of the existing operators challenged the grant of permits under Section 80 of the 1988 Act by filing writ petitions, but the same were also dismissed.
