Nationalisation scheme primacy under motor vehicles law bars overlapping private permits and preserves notified route exclusion.

A final approved nationalisation scheme under the motor vehicles regime continues to override ordinary permit provisions and excludes private operators from the notified route or any overlapping part of it. The 1986 draft scheme was held not to have lapsed under section 100(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, because the lapse period had to be computed from commencement in the circumstances described. Permits granted to private operators on the notified or overlapping routes were therefore without jurisdiction and invalid. The decision affirms the primacy of an approved scheme over competing private permits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the approved nationalisation scheme on the Saharanpur-Shahdara-Delhi route continued to operate to the exclusion of private operators despite the later proceedings and grant of permits; (ii) whether the draft scheme published in 1986 had lapsed by operation of section 100(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; and (iii) whether permits granted to private operators on the notified or overlapping routes under section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were valid.

Issue (i): whether the approved nationalisation scheme on the Saharanpur-Shahdara-Delhi route continued to operate to the exclusion of private operators despite the later proceedings and grant of permits.

Analysis: The approved scheme published in 1959 had attained finality and, on the Court's reading of the earlier binding decisions, operated as law against all persons except the limited class of operators whose objections had been preserved. A scheme under Chapter IV-A of the repealed Act had overriding effect over the ordinary permit provisions, and private operators could not claim a right to ply on a notified route or on any part of it merely because their routes overlapped. The later judgment quashing the earlier draft scheme did not destroy the final approved scheme, and a Bench of two Judges could not overrule the earlier larger-Bench position recognizing its continuing operation.

Conclusion: The approved scheme remained valid and continued to exclude private operators except to the limited extent earlier preserved.

Issue (ii): whether the draft scheme published in 1986 had lapsed by operation of section 100(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Analysis: The Court applied the harmonised construction of sections 217(2)(e) and 100(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and followed the later precedent that the one-year lapse provision applied to draft schemes under the new Act, not in the manner assumed by the High Court to an erstwhile scheme pending before commencement. Since the 1986 draft scheme was pending when the Act commenced, the statutory period had to be computed from the date of commencement and the scheme had not lapsed within that period. The contrary view of the hearing authority and the High Court was held to be erroneous.

Conclusion: The 1986 draft scheme had not lapsed under section 100(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Issue (iii): whether permits granted to private operators on the notified or overlapping routes under section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were valid.

Analysis: Because the nationalised scheme continued to operate, the general permit power under Chapter V could not override the exclusionary effect of the approved scheme. The Court held that the grant of permits on routes, parts, or portions covered by the scheme was without jurisdiction, and corridor protection could not legitimise private operations on the notified route. The prolonged litigation had conferred an unfair advantage on the private operators, which the Court declined to preserve.

Conclusion: The permits granted to the private operators were invalid and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The decision restored the primacy of the approved nationalisation scheme, rejected the contention that the 1986 draft scheme had lapsed, and nullified the competing private permits on the notified routes.

Ratio Decidendi: A final approved nationalisation scheme under the motor vehicles regime overrides ordinary permit provisions, excludes private operators from the notified route or any overlapping part of it, and a pending draft scheme under the new Act does not lapse merely because it was not approved within one year unless the statutory time computation so requires.

---