Public transport scheme delay can justify judicial intervention to secure prompt decision and protect temporary permits.

SC commentary on Chapter IVA transport regulation states that prolonged and unexplained delay in deciding a scheme under section 68D can justify judicial intervention to secure prompt disposal, because the statutory process is meant to be resolved speedily in the public interest. It also notes that where the Regional Transport Authority has found a need for additional services and granted temporary permits under section 68F(1C), cancellation of those permits is unsustainable if based only on technical objections arising from an unresolved scheme and contrary to pressing public transport needs. The temporary permits were restored, and the State Government was directed to complete the statutory decision within the time fixed, failing which the scheme would stand quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether prolonged and unexplained delay by the State Government in deciding a scheme published under section 68C justified judicial intervention to secure a decision under section 68D. (ii) Whether the cancellation of temporary permits granted under section 68F(1C) could be sustained despite the delay and the transport requirements found by the Regional Transport Authority.

Issue (i): Whether prolonged and unexplained delay by the State Government in deciding a scheme published under section 68C justified judicial intervention to secure a decision under section 68D.

Analysis: The scheme remained pending for many years after publication, although Chapter IVA contemplated speedy approval, modification, or rejection in view of the public interest underlying the transport regulation. Prolonged delay upset the balance intended by the statutory scheme, prejudiced the travelling public, and created an administrative stalemate. In such circumstances, the court could direct the State Government to decide the matter within a fixed time and, if necessary, give consequential directions to prevent continued abuse of the statutory process.

Conclusion: Judicial intervention to compel an expeditious decision under section 68D was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the cancellation of temporary permits granted under section 68F(1C) could be sustained despite the delay and the transport requirements found by the Regional Transport Authority.

Analysis: The Regional Transport Authority had found a need for additional services and had granted temporary permits accordingly. The cancellation of those permits was based on technical objections arising from the pending scheme, but the long delay in disposal of the scheme and the public need for transport facilities made that approach untenable. The orders setting aside the temporary permits ignored the relevant public interest considerations and the practical consequences of continued delay.

Conclusion: The cancellation of the temporary permits was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The temporary permits were restored, and the State Government was directed to complete the statutory decision on the scheme within the time fixed by the Court, failing which the scheme would stand quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory scheme affecting public transport remains undecided for an unreasonably long period, the court may intervene to secure prompt disposal in public interest and may protect interim transport arrangements that serve pressing public needs.

---