1991 (8) TMI 331 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms validity of notification under new Act, dismisses challenge to transport scheme

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the final notification issued under Section 100(3) of the new Act, dismissing the appellant's challenge to the ... - Issues Involved:1. Nationalisation Scheme Validity2. Delay in Final Notification3. Applicability of New Act Provisions to Old Act Schemes4. Period of Limitation for Finalising SchemesSummary:Nationalisation Scheme Validity:The appellant challenged the nationalisation scheme for the Kota-Sangod route proposed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (old Act). The High Court dismissed the writ petition, and the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.Delay in Final Notification:The appellant argued that the undue delay of 11 years in issuing the final notification rendered the scheme invalid. The Supreme Court noted that the delay was caused by the appellant and other operators who approached the Minister for Transport, stalling the notification process. The Court held that the appellant could not complain about the delay he was responsible for.Applicability of New Act Provisions to Old Act Schemes:The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (new Act) came into force on 1.7.1989, repealing the old Act. The appellant contended that the scheme proposed under the old Act lapsed due to the delay in finalisation. The Court referred to Section 217(2)(e) of the new Act, which saves schemes proposed under Section 68-C of the old Act and mandates their finalisation under Section 100 of the new Act. The Court held that the scheme did not lapse automatically and was saved by the new Act.Period of Limitation for Finalising Schemes:The appellant argued that under Section 100(4) of the new Act, the scheme lapsed as it was not finalised within one year from the date of publication. The Court clarified that Section 100(4) applies to schemes proposed under the new Act, not to those under the old Act. For schemes under the old Act, the one-year period should be computed from the date of commencement of the new Act (1.7.1989). The final notification issued on 29.8.1990 was within the prescribed period, considering the stay order obtained by the appellant, which excluded the period of the stay from the one-year limitation.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appellant's writ petition and confirming the validity of the final notification issued under Section 100(3) of the new Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs.