JUDGMENT 1. A scheme u/s 68-D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for Short the Act.) for Gangapur-Kela Devi route, distance 45 Kms. has been published by the State Government in Rajasthan Gazette (Extra-Ordinary) dated 30-6-85. The three writ petitions by the existing operators of different routes have been filed challenging the above scheme. As a common question is involved in all the three writ petitions, they are being dealt with by this single order. 2. The three petitioners were having non-temporary stage carriage permits either over Karauli-Gangapur route or on other routes which overlap on the nationalised scheme Gangapur-Kela Devi. The non-petitioner (2) published a draft scheme in respect of the route Gangapur-Kela Devi, which was published in Rajasthan Gazette dated 26-7-76. Objections were filed by the operators of Karauli and Gangapur and other routes against the proposed scheme. The Joint Legal Remembrancer (2) heard the objections and finally approved the draft scheme vide his order dated 28-2-80. The scheme as approved u/s 68-D (2) of the Act, as already stated earlier, as approved was published in the Rajasthan Gazette (Extra-Ordinary) dated 13-6-85. 3. In the three petitions the main challenge to the nationalised scheme is that the final scheme has been published after a lapse of more than five years since the scheme was approved u/s 68-D (2) of the Act. During this period because of population explosion and all around development economic and otherwise, there has been a need of more buses on this route. The existing operators are providing 34 single trips with 31 buses. Under the nationalised scheme four buses will provide 20 return trips. It is also submitted that under the scheme of the Act, the scheme as approved under Section -D of the Act should be approved, and the approved scheme should be notified immediately thereafter. If it is not done, and the Government takes about five years, then the scheme cannot be said to be in public interest. 4. Mr. Mehta learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the relevant provisions of the Act in support of his contention that the scheme should have been published within a reasonable time, if the same was approved u/s 68-D (2) of the Act. 4. Mr. Mehta learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the relevant provisions of the Act in support of his contention that the scheme should have been published within a reasonable time, if the same was approved u/s 68-D (2) of the Act. Under Section -C of the Act, when any State Transport Undertaking is of opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services in general of any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise, the State Transport Undertaking may prepare a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and such other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed, and shall cause every such scheme to be published in the Official Gazette and also in such other manner as the State Government may direct. 5. There is no dispute between the parties that in accordance with Section C of the Act a scheme was published for Gangapur-Kela Devi Route on 26-7-76. Under Section -D of the Act there is a provision of filing of objections by the existing operators, or by any association representing persons interested or in the provisions of road transport facilities, and any local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the area or route proposed to be covered by the scheme lies. Such objections may be made within 30 days from the date of publication of the scheme in the official gazette. 6. The State Government after considering the objections and after giving opportunity to the objectors or their representatives and the representatives of State Transport Undertaking to be heard in the mark, if they so desire, may approve or modify the scheme under Section 68 (2) of the Act. As already stated earlier, the scheme was approved on 28-2-80. The scheme so approved was published under Section (3) of the Act on 13-6-85, in the Rajasthan Gazette and thus the scheme has become final. 7. According to Mr. As already stated earlier, the scheme was approved on 28-2-80. The scheme so approved was published under Section (3) of the Act on 13-6-85, in the Rajasthan Gazette and thus the scheme has become final. 7. According to Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners, the objections can only be filed under Section 68-D (t) of the Act within 30 days of the publication of the scheme u/s 68 C of the Act and the Scheme was to be approved after considering the objections and after giving opportunity of hearing to those interested. He submits that once the scheme is approved, then there should not be much time lag in between its final publication u/s 68 (3) and its approval under Section -D of the Act. By referring to the provisions of Section 68-F and more particularly to its sub- sec. (1-A) and (1-B) and sub sec. (2) it was contended by Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner that the approved scheme must be notified in the official gazette immediately after approval u/s 68-D (2) of the Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has referred to (1) Yogeshwar Jaiswal V. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1985 SC 516 , and specifically to its paras 4, 5 and 6. It was a case where a nationalised scheme had not even been approved u/s 68-D (2) of the Act, and no notification under sub-sec. (3) of Section had been issued. Some temporary permits had been issued after the publication of the scheme u/s 68-C of the Act. Those temporary permits were cancelled. So far as dealing with the case and holding that the cancellation of temporary permits issued in favour of the appellants in that case has resulted in grave public prejudice, their Lordships made some observations. It was observed; "Necessarily, therefore, the State Government is required by law to pass its orders under section 60D of the Act as early as possible. Delay in performance of statutory duties amounts to an abuse of process of law and has to be remedied by the court particularly when the public interest suffers thereby. It was observed; "Necessarily, therefore, the State Government is required by law to pass its orders under section 60D of the Act as early as possible. Delay in performance of statutory duties amounts to an abuse of process of law and has to be remedied by the court particularly when the public interest suffers thereby. Hence if there is an unreasonably long and unexplained delay in the State Government passing orders under section 68D of the Act, the court may issue a mandamus to the State Government to dispose of the case under section 68D of the Act within a specified time or may in an appropriate case even issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the scheme and a writ in the nature of prohibition directing the State Government not to proceed with the consideration of the scheme published under section 68 D of the Act because section 68 D does not confer an unfetterred discretion on the State Government to deal with the case as it likes. The power under Section 68D has to be exercised having due regard to the public interest." 8. In that case, the notification under Section C of the Act was published on 17/ 11 /71 by the State Transport Undertaking of the State of U.P. in the U.P. Gazette dated 27/11/71. Under it objections were invited. The scheme was not even approved u/s 68D(2) of the Act. In para 7, their Lordships observed; "We, therefore, consider that in the interest of justice it is appropriate to bring to an end the proceedings under section 68D of the Act expeditiously. We would have perhaps considered the question of quashing the scheme itself at this stage,. but since no such contention is urged before us, we feel that it is sufficient to issue a direction to the State Government to pass orders under section 68D (2) of the Act approving the scheme with or without modification or rejecting it or to pass any other order thereon which it may pass under that provision or before July 31, 1985. We issue a direction accordingly. If the State Government approves the scheme with or without any modification, such approved scheme shall be published under section 68D (3) of the Act on or before August 31, 1985." 9. To my mind, that case has no application to the facts of the instant case. We issue a direction accordingly. If the State Government approves the scheme with or without any modification, such approved scheme shall be published under section 68D (3) of the Act on or before August 31, 1985." 9. To my mind, that case has no application to the facts of the instant case. No doubt, as per the observations made therein it is the statutory duty of the State Government to pass its order under Section D of the Act, as early as possible, but merely because the State Government does not pass an order, it cannot be said that an order which was ultimately passed under section 68D of the Act will be illegal or will be liable to be quashed. In that case also, because even the scheme has not been approved u/s 68D (2) of the Act, observations were made that if the prayer has been made for quashing the scheme, their Lordships would have considered the question. In the instant case, the final scheme as approved under section 68D (2) of the Act has been, published, though after more than five years of its approval u/s 68D (2) of the Act. The scheme of the Act as stated earlier is no doubt that the proceedings of finalising the scheme must be expedited. But as already stated earlier, if they have not been so expedited. and a final notification has been published, it cannot be said that the same is illegal and is liable to be quashed. Even in that case their Lordships directed to approve the scheme under section 68D (2) of the Act and to publish the same u/s 68D (3) of the Act by 31/9/185. when the judgment was pronounced on 31 / 1 /85 To my mind before publication of the scheme under sub-section (3) of the section 68D of the Act either as approved under sub-sec. (2) or as modified there can be various options with the court, if at that stage one comes to it, to either issue a certiorari to expedite the proceedings or to quash the proceedings in case there has been unusual and abnormal delay after publication of the modified scheme under Section C of the Act. But once it is finally published under Section D(3), it can only be quashed if it is held to be not in public interest. 10. But once it is finally published under Section D(3), it can only be quashed if it is held to be not in public interest. 10. The other challenge is that the existing operators with 31 buses are providing 34 return trips. So far as the route Karauli-Gangapur is concerned, the existing operators of that route are providing 10 single trips. The other trips are being provided by the other routes which overlap on Karauli-Gangapur route. In the instant case, the scheme has been approved that four buses will ply 20 single trips. Mr. Jain, learned Advocate General has with the assistance of Asstt. Depot Manager given information that in all 34 single trips are being provided including 20 single trips by the four buses for which permits have been issued. Mr. Jain also contends that after the scheme was finally published in the Raj. Gazette on 13-6-85, the Stage Carriage permits of the petitioners and others on Karauli-Gangapur route and other routes which were overlapping on the nationalised route Gangapur-Kela Devi have been cancelled or curtailed. He contends that under Section 68 F (2) of the Act, for the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme Gangapur-Kela Devi, the R. T. A. has taken an action in cancelling the permit or curtailing it. He has referred to (2) Sobhraj Odharmal V. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 640 , wherein it has been held that where a scheme was duly published u/s 68 D of the Act and the permit issued in favour of the existing operators was lawfully cancelled by the order of the R.T.A. in pursuance of the directions contained in the scheme, it is not open to the operators whose permits are cancelled to claim that the State Authority which commenced to operate its vehicles without obtaining permits under Section 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act infringes the right of the operators to carry on their business. It was further held that the right of the operators having been lawfully extinguished pro tanto by the scheme, and the consequential order under section 68 F (2), they are not entitled to have resort to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution for protection of their alleged right. It was further held that the right of the operators having been lawfully extinguished pro tanto by the scheme, and the consequential order under section 68 F (2), they are not entitled to have resort to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution for protection of their alleged right. He, therefore, contends that the permits having been cancelled or curtailed in order to give effect to the nationalised scheme, the petitioners have no right to ply the buses. According to him,it is an act of the Regional Transport Authority and merely because a caveat was entered by him on 26-7-85, it will not change the position. 11. In my opinion, it cannot be said that the scheme prima facie is not in public interest. 12. The result is that all the three above writ petitions are dismissed in limine.Petitions dismissed. *******