NDLI: Ram Krishnaverma Etc. Etc. Vs. State of U.p. and Ors. Etc. Etc.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	motor vehicle
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Motor Vehicles Act 1939 : Sections 68-C, 68-D and 68-F Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 80 C and 98-Grant of permit to private operators on nationalised routes- Draft scheme published under old Act-Private operators obtaining permits under new Act for routes covered by the scheme- Grant of permit to any other operator for the routes covered by the scheme-Whether illegal and without jurisdiction- Whether corridor protection permissible. Constitution of India 1950 : Articles 136, 141, 142 and 226 Court should neutralise any undeserved and unfair advantage gained by party invoking its jurisdiction. Precedent- Practice and Procedure--Supreme Court two Judge bench not to over rule decision of three judge bench. Administrative Law. Natural Justice- Principle of right to hearing-Forfeiture of-When party obtains undue advantage by protracting proceedings and nullifying objective. To nationalise the Saharanpur - Shahdara - Delhi route a draft scheme dated 26th February, 1959 was published, and the approved scheme published on September 29, 1959 was quashed by the high Court by judgments dated October 31, 1961 and February 7, 1962 as against 50 operators and being upheld against other 50 operators. The State Govt. was permitted to given fresh hearing to the 50 objectors, on the basis of the original proposal which was upheld in Jeewan Nath Bahl & Ors. v. State of U.P. Out of the 50 operators some filed successive suits and obtained injunction from different courts scuttling the hearing and keeping it pending for well over 25 years. A writ petition was filed in this Court assailing, that the delay in approving the scheme amounts to an abuse of process of law, and that public interest thereby suffered, and the Court held in Shri Chand etc. v. Govt. of U.P. & Ors., (1985] Suppl. 2 SCR 688 that the delay of 26 years in disposing of the objections resulted in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution, and accordingly quashed the draft scheme dated February 26, 1959. The Government was directed to frame the scheme afresh, if necessary. Pursuant thereto the U.P. State Road Corporation published the draft scheme on February 13, 1986. While it was pending the Motor Vehicles Act 59 of 1988 came into force with effect from July 1, 1989. Bulandshahr to Delhi route was also nationalised in the approved scheme published in the State Gazette dated September 27, 1986. After the 1988 Act came into force, the respondents applied for and were granted permits for Saharanpur to Ghaziabad via Shahdara routes etc. The appellants filed the writ petitions in the High Court and the same were dismissed by judgment dated July 23, 1990. The draft scheme published in 1986 was held by the hearing authority to have been lapsed by operation of Section 100(4) of the Act. In the writ petition filed by the S.T.U. the High Court by its judgment dated March 16, 1990 held that the draft scheme stood lapsed within one year from the date of the publication of the draft scheme, and accordingly upheld the order of the hearing authority. S.L.P. No. 6300/91 was filed against this judgment. Special Leave Petition Nos. 9701/90, 9702/90 and 2083/91 were filed against the High Court's judgment dismissing the writ petitions in which grant of permits under Section 80 of the Motor· Vehicles Act on the Muzaffarnagar- Chausana; Ghaziabad to Shahdara, Saharanpur to Ghaziabad covered and partly overlapping nationalised routes were questioned. On the questions : (1) what is the effect of Shri Chand etc. v. Govt. of U.P. over Jeevan Nath Bahl & Ors. v. State of U.P. and (2) whether the draft scheme dated February 13, 1986 stood lapsed under Section 100(4) of the Act.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy
Neutral Citation	1992 INSC 96
Petitioner	Ram Krishnaverma Etc. Etc.
Respondent	State Of U.p. And Ors. Etc. Etc.
SCR	[1992] 2 S.C.R. 378
Judgement Date	1992-03-31
Case Number	1198

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Ram Krishnaverma Etc. Etc. Vs. State of U.p. and Ors. Etc. Etc.

Please Log-in to view this content

State of U.p. and Ors. Etc Vs. U.p. State Law Officers Association and Ors. Etc.

Union of India and Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Chowgule and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Etc. Etc.

U.p. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Rajendri Devi & Ors.

Rasid Javed & Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of U.p. & Anr. Etc. Etc.

Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

K.m. Chikkaputtaswamy Etc. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

State of U.p. and Others Vs. Sukhpal Singh Bal Etc. Etc.

State of U.p. and Ors. Vs. Siva Ram and Anr.

Kiran Gupta and Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of U.p. and Ors. Etc.

Ram Krishnaverma Etc. Etc. Vs. State of U.p. and Ors. Etc. Etc.

Ram Krishnaverma Etc. Etc. Vs. State of U.p. and Ors. Etc. Etc.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of U.p. and Ors. Etc Vs. U.p. State Law Officers Association and Ors. Etc.

Union of India and Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Chowgule and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Etc. Etc.

U.p. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Rajendri Devi & Ors.

Rasid Javed & Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of U.p. & Anr. Etc. Etc.

Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

K.m. Chikkaputtaswamy Etc. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

State of U.p. and Others Vs. Sukhpal Singh Bal Etc. Etc.

State of U.p. and Ors. Vs. Siva Ram and Anr.

Kiran Gupta and Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of U.p. and Ors. Etc.

Ram Krishnaverma Etc. Etc. Vs. State of U.p. and Ors. Etc. Etc.