http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: RAMESH CHAND ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/09/1979

BENCH: SHINGAL, P.N. BENCH: SHINGAL, P.N. FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:  1980 AIR  129            1980 SCR  (1) 498  1979 SCC  (4) 776

ACT:      Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1939,  Sections  68C  read  with Sections  7  &  16  of  the  U.P.  Motor  Vehicles  (Special Provisions) Act,  1976 (Act 127/76), scope of-Sections 7 and 16 of  Act 127  of 1976  relates both to section 68C and 68D i.e. to  the draft  scheme under  section 68C  and  approved scheme under  section 68D  of the  Motor Vehicles Act, 1939- Validity of  the scheme  for inter  state range Agra-Dholpur and of Agra region.

HEADNOTE:      On the  question whether  sections 7 and 16 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles  (Special Provisions)  Act, 1976  (Act 127 of 1976) related  only to  "approved" Schemes under section 68D of the  Motor Vehicles  Act  and,  therefore,  the  approved scheme for inter-state range Agra-Dholpur of Agra region was inoperative, the  Court, while dismissing the Writ Petitions and the connected special leave petitions. ^      HELD: (1)  Sections 7  and 16  of U.P.  Motor  Vehicles (Special Pro  visions) Act,  1976 have validly provided that the specification of the number of services is not and shall be deemed  to have  never been an essential requirement in a scheme prepared and published under section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. [503A-B]      The marginal note to section 7 states "specification of number of  services not  an essential requirement of section 68C or  section 68D",  makes the  intention clear  that  the section is intended to cover section 68C also. The intention is also  carried out  by the Section providing that "Nothing contained in section 68C or section 68D of the Principal Act shall be deemed to require.. " The operation of section 7 is thus intended  to apply  both to  sections 68C  and 68D. The result would  be that  if one of the requirements of section 68C is  that it  should specify the number of services to be provided, it  shall be  deemed that  requirement  was  never there. The  reference to  the  approved  scheme  is  because section 68C  and section 68D form part of the same procedure of publication  of a scheme and approval of the scheme. That this  is   the  object  is  put  beyond  all  doubt  by  the introduction of  the validation  section, section  16, which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

provides that  in any  scheme prepared  or  published  under section 68C or approved or modified under section 68D of the Principal Act  shall not  be deemed  to be  invalid  on  the ground of  number of  services  to  be  provided  being  not specified therein. [502F-H, 503A]      Shashi Kant Rai & ors. v. Regional Transport Authority, Varanasi Region and ors. AIR 1978 All. 68 over-ruled.      2. Failure  to specify the member of services would not invalidate  the  draft  scheme  under  section  68C  or  the approved scheme under section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It  cannot be said that when the word "particulars" is used in  this part  of section 68C, it can only be satisfied if the  exact number  of vehicles and trips for each rank is specified, and, that 499 there is no other way of satisfying the requirement implicit in the  use of the A word "particulars". The exact number of vehicles and  trips for each route need not be given and all that section 7 of the amended Act provides is that the draft scheme as  well as  the approved scheme need not specify the number of services. [504C-E]      B.B. Aswathanarayan  Singh &  Ors. v. State of Mysore & ors. [1966] 1 SCR 67, applied.      (3) In  the instant case, the impugned scheme cannot be held to  be inoperative for non-mentioning of the maximum or minimum number  of buses,  vehicles  and  trips,  since  the scheme notified  in  U.P.  Gazette  on  4-12-1961  gave  the required particulars. A reading of the scheme would indicate that transport  vehicles and  services would  be provided on the routes taken over by country-type vehicles with 30 to 45 seats capacity. Moreover, this objection which was not taken before the  scheme was approved in 1963 would not be allowed to be taken after a lapse of 15 years. [504 G-H, 505 A-B]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 804-810 of 1977.      Appeals by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and order dated 20-10-76 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 1529, 1564 and 1568 to 1571/63.                             AND      WRIT PETITIONS  Nos. 650,  651, 652-653,  48, 394, 395, 691, 670, 680, 681, 687-688/79, 412-415, 416-418/79.      Under Article 32 of the Constitution                             AND      SPECIAL LEAVE  PETITION (CIVIL)  NOS. 5193, 5196 and 17 5517/79      From the  Judgment and  order dated  20-10-1976 of  the Allahabad High  Court in  Civil Misc.  Writ Nos. 1523, 1544, 1528, 1541 and 1527/63.      R.K. Garg,  P.C. Bhartari  for the  Appellant  in  C.A. 804/77.      G. L.  Sanghi and  P.C. Bhartari, for the Petitioner in W.P. No. 48/79 and in S.L.P. Nos. 5193-5196 and 5517/79.      P. C.  Bhartari for  the Appellant/Petitioners  in C.A. 805-810/ 77 and W.P. 650, 651, 652, 653, 395, 691, 670, 680, 681, 687, 688/79 and other cases.      Shanti Bhushan P.C. Bhartari for the Petitioner in W.P. 394/79. 500 S.V. Gupte,  Raj Narain  Munshi and Sobhagmal Jain for RR. 7 in C.A.  Nos. 804-810/77  and W.P.  Nos. 650/79  and SLP (C) Nos. 5193-5196/79 and 5517/79.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

    Y.S. Chitaley, Raj Narain Munshi and Sobhagmal Jain for RR 7 in W.P. 48/79.      Raj Narain  Munshi, Sobhagmal Jain and S.K. Jain for RR 7. in W.P. 651, 652, 653, 394, 395, 691, 670, 680, 651, 687- 688/79.      P.B. Sharma for RR 8 in W.P. 48/79.      O.P. Rana for the Intervener, State of U.P.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KAILASAM. J.  In all  these appeals, writ petitions and special  leave   petitions  the  challenge  is  against  the validity  of  the  scheme  framed  by  the  State  Transport Undertaking of U.P.      In giving  special leave  in Civil  Appeals Nos. 804 to 810 of  1977 this  Court restricted  the  special  leave  by stating "Special  leave  granted  confined  to  the  alleged conflict between  s. 68(c)  of the  Motor Vehicles  Act  and sections 7  and 16  of the  U.P. Amendment Act of 1976, (Act 127/1976). When  the hearing  in these  matters started  Mr. Garg, learned  counsel for  the appellants,  submitted  that there is  no conflict between sec. 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939  and sections  7 and 16 of the U.P. Amendment Act. But his  plea is  that the  amendment has  not  in  any  way affected or  cured the defect in sec. 68C and there fore the defect in the scheme continues to render it invalid      In terms  of the  restricted leave  granted, we  do not think it  is strictly  open to  the learned counsel to raise the plea  which he  has taken  before  us.  But  as  several matters are  involved and  there is  a conflict  between two judgments of  the Allahabad High Court we gave permission to the learned counsel to raise this question.      The point  that is  raised by  Mr.  Garg  is  that  the introduction of  sections 7 and 16 by the Amending Act 27 of 1976, the  Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976  does not dispense with the requirements specified in sec.  68C as  the two  section relate  only  to  approved schemes.      In order  to appreciate learned counsel’s contention it is necessary  to set out sec. 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Section 68C reads as follows:- 501           "Where  any  State  transport  undertaking  is  of      opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient,      adequate,  economical  and  properly  coordinated  road      transport  service,  it  is  necessary  in  the  public      interest that road transport services in general or 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  of  route      proposed to  be  covered  and  such  other  particulars      respecting thereto  as may  be  prescribed,  and  shall      cause every such scheme to by published in the official      Gazette and  also in  such other  manner as  the  State      Government may direct." Sec. 68C requires the State Transport Undertaking to 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.  It is  thus necessary that the scheme should give  (1)   particulars  of  the  services  proposed  to  be rendered; (2)  the area or route proposed to be covered, (3) such other  particulars thereto  as may  be prescribed.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

scheme prepared under sec. 68C did not specify the number of services to  be provided. The Allahabad High Court in Shashi Kant Rai  & ors.  v. Regional Transport  Authority, Varanasi Region &  ors. held  that if  the particulars  regarding the adequacy etc.  Of the  proposed transport  services are  not given in  the draft  scheme then it will not be possible for the objectors  to file  any effective objection to the draft scheme in  this regard  and it  would be  difficult for  the Hearing Authority  to give  its decision  whether the  draft scheme will be able to provide road transport services which would fulfil  the four  purposes mentioned in sec. 68-C. The Court held  that the  draft  scheme  must  give  particulars indicating how  the proposed  transport  services  would  be efficient, adequate,  economical and  properly  coordinated. The scheme  mentioned "adequate  number of  State  transport services,  according  to  traffic  requirements  are  to  be provided on  the route  or the  portion thereof mentioned in cl. (2)  above. The  learned single  Judge and  the Division Bench of  the Allahabad High Court were of the view that the draft scheme  prepared under  sec. 68-C was defective as the minimum number  of services  and  the  vehicles  which  were proposed  to   be  introduced  on  the  road  had  not  been mentioned. In  order to get over the effects of the decision the U.P. Legislature introduced the 502 Uttar Pradesh  Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 (U.P. Act  No. 27  of 1976).  Section 7  of the Act reads as follows:-           "Nothing contained  in section  68C or section 68D      of the principal Act shall be deemed to require or ever      to have  required a  specification  being  made  in  an      approved  scheme  of  the  number  of  services  to  be      provided." Section 16  of the Act is the validating section and runs as follows:-           "Notwithstanding any  judgment decree  or order of      any court,  any  scheme  prepared  or  published  under      section 68C,  or approved or modified under section 68D      of  the  principal  Act  or  purporting  to  have  been      prepared, published,  approved or modified shall not be      deemed to be or have been in valid on the ground of the      number  of  the  services  to  be  provided  being  not      specified therein." Mr. R.  K Garg,  the learned  counsel  for  the  appellants, submitted that sec. 7 is applicable only to approved schemes i.e. for  a scheme which had been approved under sec. 68D(3) and that its object is to cure the defect in approved scheme under sec. 68-D where the number of services provided is not mentioned. The  learned counsel would reach the section that nothing contained  in the  principal Act  shall be deemed to require or  ever to  have required  a specification  of  the number of  services to be provided in an approved scheme. He would emphasise  the words "approved scheme" and submit that the change  if any  is as  regards the  particulars required under an  approved scheme  under sec.  68-D  and  that  this section would not relate, to the scheme under sec. 68-C.      The marginal  note to  sec. 7  states "Specification of number of  services not  an essential requirement of Section 68C or  Section 68D."  The intention  therefore is  to  make specification  of   number  of  services  not  an  essential requirement  under   sections  68C   and  68D.  The  section therefore is  intended to  cover sec.  68-C also. It is seen the intention  is carried  out by the section providing that "Nothing contained  in Section  68C or  Section 68D  of  the principal Act  shall be deemed to require .. " The operation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

of the  section is  thus intended  to apply both to sec. 68C and  68-D.   The  result   would  be  that  if  one  of  the requirements of  sec. 68-C  is that  it should  specify  the number of  services to  be provided  it shall be deemed that requirement was  never there.  The reference to the approved scheme is  because sec.  68-C and section 68-D form, part of the same  procedure of  publication of a scheme and approval of the  scheme. That  this is  the object  is put beyond all doubt by introduction of the validating 503 section, section  16, which  provides  that  in  any  scheme prepared  or  published  under  sec.  68-C  or  approved  or modified under  sec. 68D  of the  principal Act shall not be deemed to  be invalid on the ground of number of services to be provided  being not  specified therein.  We are satisfied that sections 7 and 16 of the Act have validly provided that the specification of the number of services is not and shall be deemed  to have  never been an essential requirement in a scheme prepared and published under sec. 68-C or approved or modified under  sec. 68-D.  The plea  of the learned counsel therefore fails.  In this, view we hold that the decision in Shashi Kant  Rai and  ors. v  Regional Transport  Authority, Varanasi Region, and Ors. (supra) is erroneously decided.      When the  arguments of  Mr. Garg  on this point and the reply thereto  were heard,  Mr. Shanti  Bhushan, the learned counsel for  one of the appellants, submitted that he may be permitted to raise the question of validity of sec. 68-C. He submitted that  if the amended sections 7 and 16 of the U.P. Act have  the effect of modifying sec 68-C, sec. 68-C itself would not  be valid.  According to  the learned  counsel the requirement of sec. 68-C is that before a scheme is prepared and published the State Transport Undertaking must be of the opinion that  for the  purpose of  providing  an  efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport services, it  is necessary  in the  public interest that the road transport  services should  be run  and operated by the State  Transport   Undertaking.  In  order  to  satisfy  the requirements the  learned counsel  submitted that the scheme should give  (1) particulars  of the  nature of the services proposed to  be rendered;  (2) area  or route proposed to be covered and such other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed.  The first two requirements with which we are concerned are under sec. 68-C. Relying on a decision of this Court in  B. H.  Aswathanarayan Singh  & ors.  v.  State  of Mysore and  Ors. the  learned counsel  submitted that if the requirement as to specification of the number of services to be provided  in the  draft  scheme  is  dispensed  with  the particulars  of  the  nature  of  services  proposed  to  be rendered as  required in  sec. 68-C  would be  lacking.  The learned counsel  referred to  page 93  of the  case  (supra) wherein the Court observed that "when sec. 68-C provides for giving particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered  the intention  is that  such details  should be given as are necessary to enable the objectors to make their objections. We see no difficulty in holding that the details of the  nature of  services proposed  to be rendered may not only be  in the  form of  a precise  number of  vehicles and trips but also 504 in the  form of  minimum and  minimum number of vehicles and trips on  each route."  Strong reliance  is  placed  on  the requirement that  the details  or  the  nature  of  services should not only be in the form of precise number of vehicles and trips but also in the form of minimum and maximum number of vehicles  and trips  on each route. But this statement is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

explained in  the next two sentences where the Court stated: "Furnishing of  minimum and  maximum number  of vehicles and trips for  each route would also in our opinion, satisfy the requirement that  particulars should  be  furnished  of  the services proposed  to be rendered. Further the indication of minimum and  maximum number  of vehicles  and trips for each route would  give the  necessary information  to enable  the objectors to  oppose the  scheme even  with reference to the adequacy of the services proposed to be rendered." We do not think that  the appellants are right in submitting that when the word  "particulars" is used in this part of the section, it can only be satisfied if the exact number of vehicles and trips for each route is specified and that there is no other way of satisfying the requirement implicit in the use of the word "particulars".  It is  thus clear that the exact number of vehicles  and trips  for each route need not be given and all that  sec. 7  of the  amended Act  provides is  that the draft scheme as well as the approved scheme need not specify the number  of services.  The  decision  relied  on  by  the learned counsel  makes it  clear that the number of vehicles and trips  for each  route need  not be specified. We 15 are therefore unable  to accept  the contention that the failure to specify the number of services would invalidate the draft scheme or the approved scheme.      The learned  counsel Mr.  Shanti Bhushan submitted that in any  event as  the maximum  or minimum  number of  buses, vehicles and  trips have  not  been  mentioned,  the  scheme should be  held to  be inoperative. This contention again is not factually substainable as the impugned scheme under sec. 68C which was notified in the U.P. Gazette on 4-12-1961 gave the required  particulars. Clause  3 of  the  scheme  stated "Adequate number  of State Road Transport passenger services according to  traffic requirements are to be provided on the route mentioned  in  clause  (2)  above.  The  provision  of Transport  service   otherwise  than  under  the  scheme  is prohibited." Clause  2 provided  that State  Road  Transport passenger services  shall be  provided  on  the  inter-State route Agra-Dholpur  of Agra  Region. Clause  6 provided that the Transport  Vehicles which  may  be  used  on  the  route indicated in  clause (2) above, shall be of country type and their carrying  capacity shall  be 30  to 45 seats. Clause 7 mentions the permits which have been cancelled. A reading of the  scheme  would  indicate  that  transport  vehicles  and services will be provided on the 505 routes taken  over by  country-type vehicles  with 30  to 45 seats capacity. There is no material to show that any of the operators or  others entitled to object to the scheme raised this objection  before the  scheme was  approved in the year 1963. When  specifically asked whether such an objection was taken to  the draft  scheme  the  learned  counsel  for  the appellants were  unable to say that the objection was taken. We feel  it is  futile for  them to  raise the  plea after a lapse of about 15 years. There is no substance in any of the contentions raised.  One cannot but express amazement at the tenacity  of  the  operators  in  stalling  any  scheme  for nationalisation of public transport.      The appeals, special leave petitions and writ petitions are dismissed with costs. V.D.K.                      Appeals and petitions dismissed. 506