Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Appeal Nos. 6283-88 and 6289-90 of 1994, decided on September 9, 1994

Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)

K.K Venugopal, Senior Advocate (Parveen Swarup and Pramod Swarup, Advocates, with him) for the Respondents.
G. Ramaswamy, Senior Advocate, for Appellants 1-4.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Senior Advocate (P.D Sharma, Advocate, with him) for Appellants 5-6.
Gaurav Jain and Abha Jain, Advocates, for the Intervenor in C.A No. 6283 of 1994.

Judges

Justice K. Ramaswamy
Justice N. Venkatachala

Acts

Section 68-C of the Act
Article 142(1)
Sub-section (3), Section 100, Act 4 of 1939
Section 80 of the Act
Section 100(3), proviso of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Sub-section (4), Section 100, Act 4 of 1939

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Supreme Court of India – Order Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The dispute concerns the nationalisation of the Saharanpur-Shahdara-Delhi inter-State route for stage carriages, a matter that has generated decades of litigation:

Draft nationalisation scheme first published on 26-2-1959 and approved by the Central Government on 9-9-1959, followed by State approval on 29-9-1959.
A fresh draft scheme was issued on 13-2-1986 pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court in Jeewan Nath Wahal after hearings of 50 private operators were treated as a mere procedural formality because they had abused the court’s process.
In Ram Krishna Verma v. State of U.P. (1992) 2 SCC 620 the Supreme Court held that neither the 1959 nor the 1986 draft scheme had lapsed and issued detailed directions quashing private permits and mandating approval of the 1986 draft within 30 days.
An approved scheme was ultimately published by the State Government on 29-5-1993.
The present appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging both the correctness of the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment and the 1993 approved scheme. The High Court rejected the challenge, leading to the instant appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, under the proviso to Section 100(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, fresh prior approval of the Central Government was mandatory for the scheme covering an inter-State route.
Whether the draft scheme had lapsed under Section 100(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 because more than one year elapsed between publication of the draft and of the approved scheme.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

The proviso to Section 100(3) of the 1988 Act makes prior Central Government approval compulsory for any inter-State scheme, and the Supreme Court could not have intended to bypass this mandatory requirement.
Under Section 100(4) of the 1988 Act a draft scheme automatically lapses if not approved and published within one year; hence the 1986 draft stood lapsed and could not have been revived by judicial directions.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ram Krishna Verma v. State of U.P. (1992) 2 SCC 620	Held that the 1959 and 1986 draft schemes had not lapsed and issued binding directions under Article 142.	Relied on to affirm that earlier directions approving the schemes are final and binding on all parties, including present appellants.
Jeewan Nath Wahal, C.A. Nos. 1616-1617 of 1966, 1968 SCN 369	Recognised Supreme Court’s approval of the scheme save for a limited hearing of 50 operators; characterised the hearing as a procedural formality.	Cited to show that the operators forfeited their right of further hearing and that the 1986 draft was already substantively approved.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Binding effect of Article 142 directions: The Court reiterated that its previous orders in Ram Krishna Verma were issued under Article 142(1) of the Constitution and therefore bind all parties, including the 50 private operators and the present appellants.
Prior Central Government approval satisfied: The requirement in the proviso to Section 100(3) of the 1988 Act had already been met when the Central Government approved the draft scheme on 9-9-1959. The current scheme is a continuation of that earlier scheme and not a fresh proposal under the 1988 Act; hence no new approval is necessary.
Inapplicability of Section 100(4) lapse provision: The 1986 draft scheme was issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Because that draft had already been approved by the Supreme Court and delayed only by tactics of the operators, the automatic-lapse provision in Section 100(4) of the 1988 Act does not apply.
Rejection of challenges to earlier judgment: The Court held that the appellants cannot re-litigate the correctness of the Supreme Court’s own earlier judgment through a writ petition or appeal.

Holding and Implications

APPEALS DISMISSED with costs of ₹1,00,000.

All prior directions contained in Ram Krishna Verma remain operative, including cancellation of private permits and implementation of the nationalised transport scheme on the Saharanpur-Shahdara-Delhi route. The decision carries no new pronouncement of law beyond reaffirming the binding nature of Article 142 orders and the continued validity of earlier approvals; its primary effect is to foreclose further litigation by the 50 private operators.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Nisar Ahmad And Others v. State Of U.P And Others

Order

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

2. The case has chequered history the facts of which have been traced by this Court in Ram Krishna Verma v. State of U.P (1992) 2 SCC 620 This Court in that judgment held that the draft scheme published on 26-2-1959 and the fresh draft scheme published pursuant to the directions by this Court of 13-2-1986 had not lapsed. The 50 operators to whom this Court in Jeewan Nath Wahal case CA Nos. 1616-1617 of 1966, 1968 SCN 369 gave the right of hearing, by resorting to the abuse of the process of the court, forfeited their right of hearing and they no more would be entitled to the hearing before the approving authority. It was also declared in Jeewan Nath Wahal case CA Nos. 1616-1617 of 1966, 1968 SCN 369 that this Court had already approved the Shaharanpur-Shahdara-Delhi scheme published under Section 68-C except to the extent of hearing the objections of the 50 operators. The hearing being only a procedural formality, the objections filed by the 50 operators outlived their purpose. Accordingly this Court gave directions as under:

“The grant of permits to all the respondents/private operators and Respondents 7 to 285 in CA No. 1198 of 1992 (SLP No. 9701 of 1990) under Section 80 of the Act or any others on the respective routes, parts or portions of the nationalised routes on 13-2-1986 draft scheme are quashed. The hearing authority shall lodge the objections of the 50 operators including the appellants herein. The competent authority shall approve the draft scheme of 1986 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the judgment, and publish the approved scheme in the Gazette. The permits granted to the 50 operators or any other shall stand cancelled from that date, if not having expired in the meanwhile. No permit shall be renewed. Appropriate action should be taken by Respondent 3 too in CA No. 1198 of 1992 (SLP No. 9701 of 1990) to see that all the permits granted to the 50 operators including the appellants are seized and cancelled. The U.P State Transport Corporation shall obtain required additional permits, if need be, and put the stage carriages on the routes to provide transport service, to the travelling public immediately on publication of the approved draft scheme in the State Gazette. The appeal arising out of SLP No. 2033 of 1991 is allowed with costs throughout against Respondents 4 to 13. The appeal arising out of SLP Nos. 6300 of 1991, 9701 of 1990 and 9702 of 1990 are allowed without costs.”

Thereafter the approved scheme was published by the Government on 29-5-1993. The appellants filed the writ petition in High Court not only questioning the correctness of the judgment of this Court but also the approved scheme published by the Government on 29-5-1993. In our view quite rightly High Court declined to accede to the contentions made by the appellants on the correctness of the judgment of this Court. The directions issued by this Court under Article 142(1) are binding on all the parties including the 50 operators and were declared to be bound by the orders passed by this Court in Ram Krishna Verma case (1992) 2 SCC 620. Therefore, they are bound by the orders passed by this Court in the above judgment.

3. The only contention raised by Shri G. Ramaswami, the learned Senior Counsel, is that by operation of Section 100(3), proviso of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act), the prior approval of the Central Government relating to the scheme on the inter-State route is mandatory and this Court never intended to violate that mandatory requirement in proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 100. It is also contended that if the scheme was not published under sub-section (4) of Section 100 within a period of one year from the date of the publication of the proposed draft scheme under sub-section (4) of Section 100, the draft scheme stood lapsed and this Court did not intend to revive the lapsed draft scheme. We find no force in the contentions. As regards prior approval of the Central Government under proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 100 is concerned the Central Government had approved the draft scheme dated 26-2-1959 which was upheld not only in Jeewan Nath Wahal case CA Nos. 1616-1617 of 1966, 1968 SCN 369 but also in Ram Krishna Verma case (1992) 2 SCC 620. It is not in dispute that the Central Government had given its prior approval on 9-9-1959 and the scheme was approved, thereafter, by the State Government on 29-9-1959. Therefore, as regards the approval of the Central Government is concerned under Act 4 of 1939, the mandatory requirement was complied with. What is required by the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 100 is a scheme proposed under the Act. The present one is not a scheme proposed under the Act and that, therefore, the prior approval of the Central Government under the Act is not necessary. It is also to be seen that sub-section (4) of Section 100 is clearly inapplicable in the facts of this case. The scheme published by the State Government on 13-2-1986 was under the Act 4 of 1939. That draft scheme was pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, in consequence to the closing of hearing directed by this Court in Jeewan Nath Wahal case CA Nos. 1616-1617 of 1966, 1968 SCN 369 became final. The hearing was delayed due to dilatory tactics adopted by the operators and as per the directions of this Court in Ram Krishna Verma case (1992) 2 SCC 620 the draft scheme was approved. In view of that matter and since this Court has already approved the draft scheme not only dated 26-2-1959 but also of 13-2-1986, the question of the lapse under sub-section (4) of Section 100 does not arise. The appeals are accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs 1 lakh.

Nisar Ahmad And Others v. State Of U.P And Others

Supreme Court of India – Order Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Nisar Ahmad And Others v. State Of U.P And Others

Comments

We use cookies to improve your experience