http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: BHARATPUR MOTOR WORKERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LID.  ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/09/1974

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. RAY, A.N. (CJ) MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN

CITATION:  1975 AIR   40            1975 SCR  (2)  37  1975 SCC  (2) 702

ACT: Motor  Vehicles Act (4 of 1939) ss. 68C and  68D-Inter-State route--Publication of Scheme by State Transport  Undertaking in official gazette Whether should be in the gazettes of all States concerned.

HEADNOTE: Section  68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, enables  State Transport  Under-.  takings  to  prepare  schemes  excluding totally or partially, private operators from bus routes.  It provides  for  the publication of the  prepared  scheme  and cognate  particulars  in the official Gazette  and  in  such other  manner as the State Government may  direct.   Section 68D provides for hearing of the viewpoints of categories  of entities enumerated in the section. The State Transport Undertaking of U.P. contemplated framing of a scheme excluding private operators from the route  Agra (in  U.P.)  to  Bharatpur (in Rajasthan).   The  scheme  was published in the official gazette of the State of U.P.,  but was not published in the gazette of Rajasthan.  Some private operators, other than the appellants, raised objections  but the  scheme  was approved.  The  appellants  challenged  the scheme on the ground that the non-publication of the  scheme in  the Rajasthan Gazette was a contravention of  the  vital formality in s. 68C.  The High Court dismissed the petition. Dismissing the appeal to this Court, HELD : (1) Section 68C relates to both intrastate and inter- state schemes.  The wholesome intendment of ss. 68C and  68D could be fulfilled if schemes relating to inter-state routes are published in all the States concerned But, a perusal  of s.  68C  shows that it speaks of the State  Government,  the Official  gazette and the State Transport Undertaking,  even though, inter-state schemes also come within the compass  of the  provision.   Therefore.  the  section  merely  requires publication  in the concerned official gazette of the  State whose undertaking initiates the project for nationalisation. The  fact  that  for  statutory  construction  the  singular includes the plural, does Rot make it compulsory to read the plural  wherever the singular is mentioned.  The  expression ’in  the  official  gazette, and  the  publication  required therein, does not undergo a change in its semantics when the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

route  concerned is an inter-state as against an  intrastate one. [40D, G-41A] (2)The  High Court was right in rejecting  the  contention that  authorities  in the State of U.P.  could  not  validly cancel permits held by bus operators of Rajasthan. [41C-D]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1119-1122 of 1973 and 816 to 835 of 1974. From the judgment and order dated the 9th December, 1971  of the Allahabad High Court in Spl.  Appeals Nos. 658, 664, 674 and 678/1968, and 653-657, 659-660, 663, 667, 669-673,  677, 678-680 and 685-686/1968 respectively. M.N.  Phadke,  (In C. A. No. 1119/73), B. Sen (In  C,  A. Nos. 1120-1122/73) and D. N. Mishra, for the, appellants (In C. As.  Nos. 1119-1122/73). 38 B.   P. Maheshwari, for the appellants (In C. As.  Nos. 816- 8.35/4). O. P. Rana, for the respondents (In all the appeals),. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA  IYER,  J.-These appeals stem out  of  a  litigation which  germinated  from  a  certain  nationalisation  scheme contemplated in Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act,  1939 (Act IV of 1939) (hereinafter called the Act). More  than a decade ago, the State Transport Undertaking  of Uttar  Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the  Undertaking, for  short)  took steps for framing four  schemes  for  four routes and proceeded to publish the necessary  notifications in  the Uttar Pradesh Gazette, copies whereof were  sent  to Rajasthan  for  being  pasted on the notice  boards  of  the Transport  Authorities in that State.  A statutory  enquiry, envisaged in Chapter IVA, followed.  Some operators-not  the appellants--raised  objections and, eventually, the  schemes were   approved.   Of  course  these  schemes   related   to interstate  routes and had received the concurrence  of  the State  of  Rajasthan.   Although the  Act  contemplates  the framing  of  schemes  for nationalisation  for  the  obvious benefit   of  the  traveling  public  by  provision  of   an efficient,  adequate,  economical and  properly  coordinated road  transport  service affords statutory  opportunity  for raising objections and making representations, not merely to the  affected  operators  but also to  other  entities  like associations  representing  persons interested in  the  pro- vision  of  road transport  facilities,  local  authorities, police  authorties  etc., in the present case  only  private operators  have  raised  their voice  against  the  proposed schemes.  While it may look a little odd for such  operators to  plead  in  Court  that  public  bodies  and  passengers’ associations in Rajasthan have been denied opportunities  of making effective representation, that does not detract  from the obligation of this Court to consider whether  obligatory procedural  requisites prescribed by the statute  have  been adhered  to in the process of nationalising the  inter-State route concerned. As  already indicated, these appeals relate to the  validity of  a  scheme  of nationalisation of  an  inter-State  route stretching   across  Uttar  Pradesh  and   Rajasthan.    The identical scheme was challenged, without success, on certain constitutional  grounds  by a number of operators  and  this Court  negatived those contentions in its decision  reported as  Khazan  Singh v. State of U.P.(1). A  few  grounds,  not urged  before  this  Court in the  earlier  round,  however,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

survive  for our consideration.  As was rightly pointed  out by  Mr. Phadke, learned counsel for some of  the  appellants and  also  by  Mr. B. Sen, appearing  for  the  others,  the earlier  decision  was  rendered  in  appeals  pursuant   to certificates granted under Art. 132(1) of the  Constitution. Necessarily  they  were confined to  constitutional  issues. The   present   points  do  not  savor   of   constitutional invalidity,   but  of  illegality  for  nonconformity   with statutory mandates.  Although the grounds raised in (1)  A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 669. 39 the   memoranda  of  appeals,  supplemented  by   additional grounds, are quite populous, counsel for the appellants have planned  down their propositions to but two or three and  we propose  to deal with them only.  Other contentions  faintly referred  to in the course of arguments do not appeal to  us and merit no mention. The  facts  pertaining to the questions we propose  to  deal with lend themselves to a brief statement.  The  Undertaking contemplated framing of a scheme excluding private operators from  the route Agra (in U.P.) to Bharatpur (in  Rajasthan). Admittedly,  the scheme which was published in the  official gazette  of  the State of U.P. on December 9, 1961  was  not published in the Gazette of Rajasthan.  Section 68C  enables State Transport Undertakings ’to prepare schemes totally  or partially excluding private operators from bus routes.   The Act  also  provides  for  hearing,  under  S.  68D,  of  the viewpoints of categories of concerned entities enumerated in the   section.   Of  course  no  worthwhile  objections   or constructive  suggestions  can be made  regarding  a  scheme unless  there  is  knowledge about the  particulars  of  the scheme.   For this reason S. 68C provides for  the  proposed scheme  and  cognate  particulars to be  published  ’in  the Official Gazette and also in such other manner as the  State Government  may  direct’.  Rules have been  framed  and  our attention  has  been  drawn to Rule 4  which  provides  that schemes framed under S. 68C of the Act shall be published in form  appended to the Rules.  The Transport Commissioner  is obligated  to get a copy of the scheme pasted on the  notice board  of  the office of the State Transport  Authority  and another  at the office of the Regional  Transport  Authority concerned. It  was suggested that the Rules had not been complied  with but,  in  the  light of the  categorical  statement  in  the judgment under appeal to the contrary, there is no merit  in this argument.  The High Court has stated               "It  is not disputed that this Rule (Rule  ’4)               was complied with.  The notices were put up on               the  notice  board  of  the  State   Transport               Authorities  of  Uttar  Pradesh  and  also  of               Rajasthan." There  is  thus  no  non-compliance  with  rules   regarding publication of the scheme. As mentioned by the High Court, the bus operators who  claim to  be  aggrieved by the non-publication  in  the  Rajasthan Official  Gazette were otherwise very probably aware of  the details  of  the scheme since they were plying  their  buses between  the  two  termini located in  Rajasthan  and  Uttar Pradesh.  Even so, let us examine whether there has been any contravention  of  the vital formality in S.  68C  regarding publication in the Official Gazette.  The point was taken in the High Court, but was disposed of in the following manner               "As  regards  the  question  of  adequacy   or               otherwise of               notice  to the respondents, sections  68C  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

             68D provide for                40               publication,  in the official gazette  of  the               State.   This provision was complied with  and               the   notifications  were  published  in   the               official   gazette  of  the  State  of   Uttar               Pradesh." A  close  look at the fasciculus of  sections  dealing  with State  Transport  Undertakings and Schemes  framed  by  them makes  it plain that publication of particulars of a  scheme has  a purpose.  Counsel for the appellants urged that  this purpose  would be baulked if in the case of  an  inter-State route the scheme were published only in the Official Gazette of one State.  Apparently, S. 68C has been rather simplisti- cally  drawn, unmindful of its sweep in relation  to  inter- State  routes.   There  is no doubt that  if  local  bodies, police   authorities,  passengers’   associations,   private operators   and  even  potential  operators  were  to   make effective    representations   regarding    the    four-fold requirements   of   efficiency,   adequacy,   economy    and coordination in regard to the Undertaking’s proposed scheme, they must know the pertinent details.  We assume that  these particulars  come  to the cognisance of  persons  Once  they appear  in  the Official Gazette and it is  fair  that  such publication  is  made in every State covered by  the  inter- State route.  In short, the wholesome intendment of ss.  68C and  68D  would be fulfilled if schemes relating  to  inter- State routes are published in all the States concerned.   In the present case, Rule 4 goes a long way in achieving  ’this object  and  it  has been complied with.   The  question  is whether  the failure to publish in the Official  Gazette  of Rajasthan, is a fatal flaw. There  is  no  doubt, as has been pointed out  by  the  High Court,  that  the operators who are  contesting  the  scheme before us could not have been in ignorance of the anatomy of the  scheme  impugned.  Even so, let us  examine  the  legal merit of the plea on the assumption that non-publication  in ’the  Official  Gazette’  is lethal  in  legal  consequence. Section  68C, in the ordinary course, relates to  intrastate schemes,   but  may  also  cover  inter-State  routes.    An undertaking  of one State or the other may make  a  proposal for  nationalisation extending beyond its frontiers.   There are  certain  safeguards  built  into S.  68D  such  as  the previous  approval  of the Central Government having  to  be obtained.   Be  that as it may, construed strictly,  S.  68C insists  on  publication of the particulars  relating  to  a scheme intra-State or inter-State-in ’the Official Gazette’. The  base  State  or  the  undertaking  which  launches  the proposed nationalisation alone falls within the ambit of the provision.   It  is clear from a perusal of S. 68C  that  it speaks of the State Government, the Official Gazette and the State  Transport Undertaking, even though it is quite  clear that  inter-State ’schemes also come within the  compass  of the provision.  Whatever the reason-it is not for us to  ask why-the section, as it reads, merely requires publication in the   concerned   Official  Gazette  of  the   State   whose undertaking initiates the project for nationalisation.   The fact  that for statutory construction the singular  includes the  plural, does not compel us to read the plural  wherever the  singular  is  mentioned.  We  are  satisfied  that  the expression ’in the Official Gazette’ and the 41 publication  required therein, does not undergo a chance  in its semantics when the route concerned is an inter-State  as against an intraState one.  In the: present case it was  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

U.P.    Undertaking   which   proposed   the   scheme    for nationalisation  and  the  U.P.  Gazette  has  carried   the publication.  The law asks for no more.  The legal objection has therefore to be overruled. It  has been stated at the Bar that it may be desirable  for State  Transport Undertakings when they propose schemes  for nationalisation of inter-State routes to get them  published in the Official Gazettes of all the States through which the route runs.  It is for the legislature to make the necessary amendatory  provision in this behalf.  However, for  reasons already  set  out, we cannot invalidate the  scheme  on  the score of its non-publication in the Rajasthan Gazette. A  point  was raised that the authorities in  the  State  of Uttar  Pradesh could not validly cancel permits held by  bus operators  of  Rajasthan.   This argument  has  engaged  the attention  of the Division Bench of the High Court  and  has been  rejected,  for  reasons stated, which  meet  with  our concurrence. It  is surprising that a nationalisation scheme,  calculated to  provide efficient and coordinated transport services  to the  common people of backward areas has got bogged down  on some  ground or other for over a decade.  It is a  notorious fact  that  means  of public transport in  the  country  are grossly  inadequate and energetic measures to overcome  this handicap have to be undertaken if the nation is to progress. But statutory hurdles and legal road-blocks laid by  private operators holding up beneficent schemes conceived in  public interest for twelve or thirteen years cannot redound to  the credit of our administrative and legal systems.   "Something is rotten in the State of Denmark". In  the  result,  the appeals fail and  are  dismissed  with costs. V.P.S. Appeals dismissed. 42