Pending transport scheme saved by transitional provisions; delay did not cause lapse and finalisation under the new Act was upheld.

A pending scheme proposed under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 did not lapse merely because the final notification was delayed until after the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 commenced, especially where the delay was contributed to by the affected operators and the old Act prescribed no automatic time limit. Section 217(2)(e) saved such pending schemes, and Section 100(4) had to be applied harmoniously so that the one-year period ran from commencement of the new Act for old-Act schemes, with exclusion of stay periods. The scheme was therefore validly finalised and the challenge to the notified route failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a scheme proposed under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 lapsed merely because the final notification was delayed until after the commencement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (ii) Whether Section 100(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 applied so as to cause lapse of a pending scheme under the repealed Act, or whether Section 217(2)(e) saved such scheme for finalisation under the new Act.

Issue (i): Whether a scheme proposed under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 lapsed merely because the final notification was delayed until after the commencement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Analysis: The scheme had been approved by the hearing authority under the old Act before the new Act commenced, and the delay in publication of the final notification was attributable in substantial part to the appellant and other affected operators who sought intervention and stalled the process. The old Act prescribed no time limit for finalisation, and there was no provision making a pending scheme automatically ineffective merely because of delay. A scheme proposed under the old Act continued to remain in force unless quashed, and therefore the proposed scheme did not lapse ipso facto on account of delay.

Conclusion: The scheme did not lapse merely because of delay in finalisation, and the appellant could not rely on the delay to invalidate it.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 100(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 applied so as to cause lapse of a pending scheme under the repealed Act, or whether Section 217(2)(e) saved such scheme for finalisation under the new Act.

Analysis: Section 100(4) lays down a one-year limit for schemes proposed under the new Act, but Section 217(2)(e) expressly saves schemes made under Section 68-C of the old Act and directs that pending schemes be disposed of in accordance with Section 100. To reconcile both provisions, harmonious construction required that the one-year period under Section 100(4) be computed from the date of commencement of the new Act in respect of pending old schemes. The stay obtained by the appellant also had to be excluded under the Explanation to Section 100(4). On that basis, the final notification issued under Section 100(3) was within time.

Conclusion: Section 100(4) did not cause automatic lapse of the pending old scheme, and the scheme was validly finalised under the new Act.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the notified route failed, and the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A pending scheme under the repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is saved by Section 217(2)(e) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and must be finalised in a manner that gives effect to both Section 217(2)(e) and Section 100(4) by harmonious construction, without allowing the scheme to lapse merely because the one-year period is counted from the original old-Act publication.

---