Shyam Narayan Jha vs State of Bihar and Others

S. Ali Ahmad & Ram Nandan Pd., JJ.—The prayer in this application is to quash Annexure 1, a Scheme issued u/s 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act which relates to the route Dumka to Deoghar. This Scheme has not been approved as yet by the Government. As a result of pendency of the Scheme, request made by the petitioner to grant permit for the aforesaid route was refused by virtue of Section 68F of the Act. Learned counsel says that the Scheme is now about seven years old, but still the same has not been approved. He, therefore, on the strength of the decision in the case of K.T. Dharanendrah Vs. Regional Transport Authority and Others, , says that the same should be quashed. The decision given by the Supreme Court fully applies to the facts of this case. But Mr. Chaudhary says that the petitioner really wants a declaratory relief which cannot be given in a case under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is not correct, firstly, it is not a merely declatory relief that the petitioner asks for because he had applied for a permit and the same has been refused on account of Section 68F of the Act. Then again Section 68C of the Act stares at the face, every one who wants to apply for permanent permit on the route in question. The relief, therefore, is such that if granted, it will entitle a person to make an application for grant of permanent permit. The second objection made by Mr. Chaudhary is that really Annexure 1, the Scheme, published u/s 68C of the Act is a superfluous one. He has said that in paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit. According to learned counsel, the Scheme is superfluous on account of Annexure ''A'' and Annexure ''B'' to the counter-affidavit. If that is so, then it is all the more necessary, to quash superfluous scheme, which is pending for about 7 years. We, however, do not say anything as to whether on account of Annexures ''A'' and ''B'', the petitioner or anyone will be entitled to permit for the route in question. That, of course, will have to be decided in accordance with law. The writ application is., therefore, allowed in the manner indicated above and Annexure 1 is quashed.