1985 (1) TMI 339 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in passing order u/s 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
2. Quashing of temporary permits issued u/s 68F(1C) of the Act.
3. Public interest and necessity for additional transport services.
4. Legal constraints and statutory duties under the Act.

Summary:

1. Delay in Passing Order u/s 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:
The Supreme Court highlighted the "lamentable delay of nearly fourteen years" by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh in passing its order u/s 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, on a scheme published u/s 68C. The Court emphasized that such delays could render the proposed scheme "antiquated, outmoded and purposeless," stressing the need for "speedy disposal" of cases u/s 68D to ensure efficient, adequate, economical, and properly coordinated transport services.

2. Quashing of Temporary Permits Issued u/s 68F(1C) of the Act:
The appellants were aggrieved by the quashing of temporary permits issued on January 10, 1980, u/s 68F(1C) by the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut. The Tribunal and the High Court set aside these permits, citing that the amalgamation and extension of permits granted to existing operators after the publication of the scheme u/s 68C were contrary to Chapter IVA of the Act. The Supreme Court found that both the Tribunal and the High Court overlooked the public interest and the necessity for additional transport services, which had been identified by the Regional Transport Authority.

3. Public Interest and Necessity for Additional Transport Services:
The Supreme Court noted that the Regional Transport Authority had identified a need for additional stage carriage services on nine routes out of the thirteen covered by the scheme. The Court criticized the Tribunal and the High Court for taking a "highly technical view" and failing to consider the adverse effect on the traveling public due to the delay in the State Government's decision. The Court emphasized that public interest should be the guiding principle in deciding cases related to motor vehicle permits.

4. Legal Constraints and Statutory Duties under the Act:
The Court discussed the legal constraints arising from the publication of the scheme u/s 68C and the necessity for the State Government to pass orders u/s 68D promptly. It highlighted that delay in performing statutory duties amounts to an abuse of process of law and can be remedied by the court. The Court issued a mandamus directing the State Government to pass orders u/s 68D(2) by July 31, 1985, and to publish the approved scheme u/s 68D(3) by August 31, 1985. If the State Government failed to comply, the scheme published u/s 68C would stand quashed with effect from August 31, 1985.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court to the extent they canceled the temporary permits issued to the appellants. The appellants were permitted to operate their services under the temporary permits issued on January 10, 1980, until the operation of these permits came to an end in accordance with law. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.