2004 (11) TMI 585 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the draft scheme dated 13.2.1986 under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
2. Application of Section 100(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to the draft scheme.
3. Principle of res judicata in the context of the draft scheme.
4. Public interest and operational capability of UPSRTC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Draft Scheme Dated 13.2.1986:
The draft scheme to nationalize the Saharanpur-Shahdara-Delhi route was initially published on 29.9.1959 under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. After various legal challenges and prolonged litigation, the Supreme Court quashed the scheme in 1985 due to a 26-year delay in disposing of objections, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. A fresh scheme covering 39 routes was published on 13.2.1986. The Allahabad High Court later quashed this scheme, but the Supreme Court directed the competent authority to approve the draft scheme within 30 days in Ram Krishna Verma's case (1992).

2. Application of Section 100(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
The High Court held that the draft scheme dated 13.2.1986 had lapsed under Section 100(4) of the 1988 Act. However, the Supreme Court found this view erroneous. Section 100(4) applies only to schemes published under the 1988 Act, not those under the 1939 Act. The Supreme Court had previously determined in Ram Krishna Verma's and Nisar Ahmad's cases that the draft scheme had not lapsed and was to be approved and published as directed. The principle of res judicata prevented re-litigation of this issue.

3. Principle of Res Judicata:
The principle of res judicata, which prevents the same case from being litigated twice, was emphasized. The Supreme Court had already decided that the draft scheme had not lapsed in earlier cases. Therefore, it was not open to the High Court to re-examine this issue. The Supreme Court reiterated that its previous decisions are binding and must be regarded as final, preventing lower courts from recording contrary findings.

4. Public Interest and Operational Capability of UPSRTC:
Arguments were raised about the UPSRTC's ability to provide efficient transport services and the financial impact on private operators who had invested in buses. Despite claims of UPSRTC's inefficiency and financial losses, it was reported that UPSRTC had made profits and inducted new buses. The Supreme Court noted that the UPSRTC could enter into agreements with private bus owners to operate on nationalized routes, potentially benefiting existing private operators. The court concluded that these factors did not justify annulling the approved scheme.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The writ petitions challenging the decision of the competent authority were to be heard afresh by the High Court, considering the Supreme Court's directions in Gajraj Singh's case. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the draft scheme dated 13.2.1986 had not lapsed and directed the competent authority to proceed accordingly. The appeals related to this issue were allowed, and the judgment of the High Court dated 23.7.2002 was set aside.