Madan Lal v. M.P State Road Transport Corporation, Bairagarh, Bhopal And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

This writ petition challenges the validity of a draft scheme (No. 75 dated March 30, 1973) published under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation proposing to operate its vehicles on the inter-State route Bhopal–Ajmer via Biaora–Kota to the exclusion of other operators.

Although the scheme was approved by the State Government under Section 68-D of the Act, it had not been published because approval from the Rajasthan State Government and the Central Government had not been obtained. The court noted that no satisfactory explanation was provided by the Corporation and the Madhya Pradesh State Government for the delay. Meanwhile, restrictions under Chapter IV-A of the Act had remained operative. Nearly 13 years having elapsed without publication, the court considered continuation of the scheme unjustified.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a draft scheme under Section 68-C, approved under Section 68-D but not published due to lack of approvals from the Rajasthan State Government and the Central Government, could be allowed to continue in force after nearly 13 years.
2. Whether the impugned scheme proposing exclusion of other operators on the Bhopal–Ajmer inter-State route should be quashed in the circumstances.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court focused on the prolonged failure to complete the statutory process for bringing the scheme into effect. While the scheme had been approved by the State Government under Section 68-D, it remained unpublished because required approvals from the Rajasthan State Government and the Central Government had not been secured.

The court noted that the Corporation and the Madhya Pradesh State Government provided no satisfactory explanation for their inability to secure these approvals. In the interim, restrictions under Chapter IV-A of the Act continued to operate. The court held that it was not justified to permit a scheme that had not yet been published under Section 68-D to remain in force after nearly 13 years.

Relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Shri Chand v. Government of U.P and Phool Chand Gupta v. Regional Transport Authority, the court quashed the impugned scheme.

However, the court crafted transitional directions: it permitted the Corporation and other operators holding permits under Sections 68-F(1-A) or 68-F(1-C) to continue operating stage carriages on the route until March 31, 1987. It also granted liberty to the State Transport Corporation to issue a fresh scheme under Section 68-C, and clarified that interested persons could apply for permits under Chapter IV, with the Regional Transport Authority empowered to issue temporary permits under Section 62 if required in the public interest.

Holding and Implications

QUASHED: The court quashed the draft scheme impugned in the writ petition.

The immediate effect was that the challenged scheme could not continue to operate. As a transitional measure, existing permit-holders under Sections 68-F(1-A) or 68-F(1-C) (including the Corporation and other operators) were allowed to continue operating stage carriages on the route until March 31, 1987. The Corporation was permitted to issue a fresh scheme under Section 68-C if it wished, and applicants were allowed to seek permits under Chapter IV; the Regional Transport Authority could also issue temporary permits under Section 62 if necessary in the public interest. The opinion does not indicate that it set out any broader implications beyond these directions.