https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184573 A draft transport scheme published under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was held not to have lapsed under Section 100(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, because earlier Supreme Court decisions had already treated it as subsisting and had confined further proceedings to a limited approval process. The High Court could not reopen that lapse question in writ proceedings, as the issue had been finally decided and was barred by finality and res judicata. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the approved scheme remained operative subject to consideration of objections within the restricted remand. en-us Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jul 2016 10:58:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184573 A draft transport scheme published under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was held not to have lapsed under Section 100(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, because earlier Supreme Court decisions had already treated it as subsisting and had confined further proceedings to a limited approval process. The High Court could not reopen that lapse question in writ proceedings, as the issue had been finally decided and was barred by finality and res judicata. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the approved scheme remained operative subject to consideration of objections within the restricted remand. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184573