http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: KHAZAN SINGH ETC.  ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT03/12/1973

BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ RAY, A.N. (CJ) MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN ALAGIRISWAMI, A. BHAGWATI, P.N.

CITATION:  1974 AIR  669            1974 SCR  (2) 562  1974 SCC  295  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1975 SC  40  (3)  D          1977 SC1170  (5)

ACT: Constitution   of  India,  Motor  Vehicles  Act,   s.   68D- Nationalisation  of  inter-State bus  routes--Whether  State Government  could approve the Scheme-Whether approval  of  a scheme amounts to legislation-Art. 298-Whether envisages the carrying  on  of trade and business within  any  territorial limit only.

HEADNOTE: In  accordance  with  a reciprocal  arrangement  arrived  at between  the Governments of U.P. and Rajasthan  certain  bus routes  between  these  two States  had  been  nationalised. Under  the  proposed scheme, approved under s.  68D  of  the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939) which was duly approved by the Central Government under the proviso to sub-s.3 of s. 68D,  no person other than the State  Transport  Undertaking was permitted to provide any road transport services on  the routes  or  portions thereof and permits which  had  already been granted to private operators were cancelled.  The  High Court held that the impugned schemes and notifications  were valid in Law. In  appeal to this Court it was contended (i) that  a  State Government  cannot  approve a Scheme for  inter-State  route under s. 68D of the Act as the power of the State Government can  only operate within its own territory; (ii) that  as  a State  Government  cannot  make law for  areas  outside  its territorial limits, the scheme approved by it in respect  of inter-State  routes  is unconstitutional and (iii)  that  in approving  a scheme a State Government  exercises  executive power  which cannot operate in areas beyond the  territorial limits of the State. Dismissing the appeals, HELD : The contention runs counter to the plain language  of the  proviso  to subs. (3) of s. 68D.  In the  face  of  the proviso it is difficult to hold that the U.P. Government was not  competent to approve and publish the  impugned  scheme.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

The   proviso   manifestly  contemplates  that   the   State Government  can, in accordance with the procedure laid  down in  Ch.   IVA of the Act, approve a scheme  relating  to  an inter-State route and publish the same.  In the instant case the   previous  approval  of  the  Central  Government   was admittedly obtained in respect of the two different  States. [568B-E] (b)  If  the  approval  of the State Government  was  to  be accorded  in  respect of that portion of  inter-State  route which was within is own territory, there would have been  no necessity  to  obtain  the prior  approval  of  the  Central Government.   The necessity of obtaining prior  approval  of the  Central Government arises because the scheme  envisages nationalisation of transport service not only for that  part of the inter-State which is within the territorial limits of the  State Government approving the scheme but also for  the remaining  part  of  the route which  is  outside  the  said territorial limits.  Inter-State route would normally  cover the  entire  route and not merely the portion of  the  route which  is  within  the  territorial  limits  of  the  State. Government which accords approval. [568G-H] (ii) The  State  Government in approving a scheme  does  not legislate in the sense the legislature of a State makes  law under art. 245 of the constitution for the whole or any part of  the  State.   The limitation on the  power  of  a  State Legislature  to make laws for the whole or any part  of  the State  and not for areas outside the territorial  limits  of the  State  cannot be invoked for the purpose of  placing  a restriction on the power conferred upon the State Government by Parliamentary legislation to approve a scheme relating to an inter-State route, [569 C-D] (iii)     The  executive power of the Union and  each  State under  Art. 298 of the Constitution extends to the  carrying on  of any trade or business.  There is nothing in art.  298 to  show  that the trade or business carried on by  a  State must 563 be  restricted  to the area within its  territorial  limits. The article envisages the carrying on of trade and  business by  a State without any territorial limitations.   A  scheme approved by the State Government under sub-s. (3) of s.  68D effectuates  the object of State monopoly in the  matter  of transport   service.   Such  a  scheme   does   not   entail encroachment  by  one State Government  upon  the  executive sphere  of  another State Government.  In the  instant  case there  is  no question of encroachment  upon  the  executive domain of one-State Government by another because the  whole thing  is  being  done  by the  two  Governments  acting  in concert. (569F-G)

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.  1737  to 1745 of 1972. From  the Judgment and order dated the 9th December 1971  of the  Allahabad  High Court at Allahabad in  Special  Appeals Nos.661 662, 665, 666, 668, 681, 682, 684 of 1968.  And Civil Appeals Nos. 1870 & 1871 of 1972 From the Judgment and Order dated the 9th December, 1971  of the  Allahabad  High Court at Allahabad in  Special  Appeals Nos. 675 and 676 of 1968. B.   Sen,  D.  N. Misra, J. B.  Dadachanji, O.C  Mathur  and Ravinder  Narain, for the appellants (in C. A. Nos. 1737  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

1745) B. D. Sharma, for the appellant (in C. A. No. 1870-71) Niren De, Attorney General of India, and O. P. Rana, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA,  J.-The  validity of schemes approved by  the  Uttar Pradesh  Government under section 68D of the Motor  Vehicles Act,  1939 (Act 4 of 1939) (hereinafter referred to  as  the Act)  for  inter-State routes as a result of  which  private operators  including those who had been granted  permits  by Regional  Transport Authorities of Rajasthan  were  excluded from  those  routes  has been called in  question  in  civil appeals  No. 1737-1745 of 1972 and civil appeals No.    1870 and  1871  of  1972 which have  been  filed  on  certificate against  the  common judgment of the Allahabad  High  Court. This judgment would dispose of all the appeals.  It would be necessary  to  reproduce only the facts of the  case  giving rise  to  civil  appeal No. 1738, for the  counsel  for  the parties  are agreed that the decision in that  appeal  would also  govern  the  other  appeals as  the  question  of  law involved in all these appeals is identical. On  June 14, 1960 a letter was sent by the Deputy  Secretary to  the  Government  of Rajasthan to the  Secretary  to  the Government  of Uttar Pradesh in reply to an  earlier  letter received   from  the  Transport  Commission  Uttar   Pradesh conveying  approval  of  the Rajasthan  Government  for  the nationalisation   of  the  undermentioned  routes  for   the operation of services by the State transport undertakings of both  States in accordance with the  reciprocal  arrangement arrived  at between the two States: 1.   Bharatpur-Agra 2.   Bharatpur-Mathura 564 3.   Alwar-Mathura 4.   Mathura-Kama Kosi via Goverdhan 5.  Agra-Dholpur We  are  in the present appeals concerned with four  of  the routes,   i.e.  the  routes  mentioned  above   other   than Bharatpur-Mathura route.  Appeal No. 1738 of 1972 relates to Dholpur-Agra  route.   It  may be  mentioned  that  Dholpur, Bharatpur,  Alwar and Kama Kosi are situated  in  Rajasthan, while  Agra  and  Mathura are situated  in  Uttar’  Pradesh. Notification  dated  December 4, 1961 was published  in  the U.P.  Gazette  dated December 9, 1961 by the  Uttar  Pradesh Government  under  section  68C of the  Act  in  respect  of proposed scheme for providing State road transport passenger services  on inter-State Agra-Dholpur route.   According  to the  propose  scheme,  no  persons  other  than  the   State transport undertaking would be permitted to provide any road transport  services on the route or portions  thereof.   The scheme also visualised the cancellation of the permits which had  been  granted to the private operators,  including  the appellants.   Objections  were invited with  regard  to  the proposed  Scheme  from persons affected by the  scheme.   No objections were, however, filed against the aforesaid scheme and the same was approved under section 68D(2) of the Act by the  Joint  Judicial Secretary to the  Government  of  Uttar Pradesh,  who was the hearing authority, as per order  dated July 30, 1962.  The Central Government conveyed its approval to  the  scheme  under the proviso  to  sub-section  (3)  of section 68D of the Act as per letter dated February 6, 1963. Notification  dated February 20, 1963 was published  by  the Uttar Pradesh Government in the official Gazette dated March 16,  1963 for the publication of the approved  scheme  under sub-section (3) of section 68D of the Act.  Clauses 1, 2,  4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

and 8 of the scheme read as under:               "1.   The  State  Road   Transport   passenger               services’ shall commence to operate from April               1, 1963 or thereafter.               2.    State Road Transport passenger  services               shall  be  provided on the  Inter-State  route               Agra Dholpur of Agra Region.               4.    No   persons   other  than   the   State               Transport  Undertakings will be  permitted  to               provide  any Road Transport Services  on  this               route or portions thereof specified in  Clause               (2) above.               8.    The number of private Transport Vehicles               on  the route or portion thereof specified  in               clause (2) above shall be reduced to nil." It  was also provided in the scheme that the permits of  the private operators would stand cancelled.  Provision was made for  compensation  for  the premature  cancellation  of  the permits  of  the private operators.   No  compensation  was, however,  to be paid when a permit for an alternative  route or  area  in  lieu  thereof  was  offered  by  the  Regional Transport  Authority  and  accepted by  the  holder  of  the permit.  By 565 notification  dated April 9, 1963 the permits in  favour  of the  private operators, including the appellants, issued  by the  Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur and  countersigned by’  the Regional Transport Authority, Agra  were  cancelled under sub-section (2) of section 68F of the Act. The appellants, who are bus operators of Rajasthan, and some others thereupon filed petitions under articles 226 and  227 of  the Constitution to challenge the validity of the  above notifications.  The learned single Judge who heard the  writ petitions  came to the conclusion that a State could not  by taking  unilateral action provide transport services  for  a territory  outside  the limits of its  own  territory.   The learned Judge was of the view that in framing the scheme the State transport undertaking performed executive function  of the  State.   View was expressed that one  State  could  not cancel  permits held by the bus operators of another  State. Finding  was also given that effective notice had  not  been given   to   the  bus  operators  of.   Rajasthan   as   the notifications were published in the Gazette of Uttar Pradesh only.   The writ petitions were accordingly allowed and  the impugned  notifications were quashed by the  learned  single Judge. On  appeal  the Division Bench of the High Court  held  that when  an  undertaking  proposes a scheme  and  the  same  is approved  by the State Government, the undertaking  and  the State Government really perform the functions of the Central Government   under  clause  (2)  of  article  258   of   the Constitution.   Regarding the cancellation of  the  permits, the Division Bench observed :-               "The  Bus  Operators  of  Uttar  Pradesh  held               permits  granted by the Transport  authorities               of  Uttar Pradesh.  They could,  however,  not               legally   ply  their  vehicles  on   hire   in               Rajasthan  beyond the limits of Uttar  Pradesh               without    first    having    their    permits               countersigned by the transport authorities  of               Rajasthan.  What really happened was that when               the Schemes were finalised, the permits of the               operators  of Uttar Pradesh were cancelled  by               the transport authorities of Uttar Pradesh and               the  counter-signatures made by the  Transport

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

             authorities  of  Rajasthan Were  cancelled  by               those  transport authorities.  Similarly,  the               permits  held by those operators of  Rajasthan               were cancelled by the Transport authorities of               Rajasthan and the counter-signatures on  those               permits  made by the transport authorities  of               Uttar   Pradesh   were  cancelled   by   these               transport authorities.  We, therefore, find no               substance in this argument advanced on  behalf               of the respondents." The High Court repelled the contention advanced on behalf of the  appellants that they had no knowledge of  the  proposed schemes.  It was observed that the. relevant provisions  for publication  of  the  schemes were complied  with  and  that notices  were  put  up on the notice  boards  of  the  State transport authorities of Uttar Pradesh as well as of  Rajas- than.   The Division Bench accordingly allowed  the  appeals filed by 566 the   State   and  held  that  the  impugned   schemes   and notifications  Were valid in law.  The Division Bench  while allowing the appeals observed:               "In  consequence, we allow these appeals,  set               aside  the order of the learned  Single  Judge               and   hold  that  the  impugned  Schemes   and               notifications  are valid in law.  The  learned               Single  Judge  has said in his  judgment  that               individual    petitions   had   raised    some               additional    and   separate    grounds    for               questioning   their  exclusion  from   certain               routes.   He,  however, felt that it  was  not               necessary  to  consider  individual  cases  of               petitioners as all the writ petitions could be               decided  on general grounds common to all  the               petitions  emerging from admitted facts.   The               individual  grounds must now be considered  by               the learned Single Judge.  He, however, is  no               longer available in this Court and the  papers               of these cases will be laid before the Hon’ble               the Chief Justice for nominating a Bench." The correctness of the view taken by the Division Bench  has been  assailed  in these appeals.  Before dealing  with  the contentions   advanced,  we  may  refer  to   the   relevant provisions of the Act as they existed at the relevant  time. Chapter  IVA was inserted in the Act by the  Motor  Vehicles (Amendment)  Act, 1956 (Act 100 of 1956).  The said  chapter came  into  force  with effect from February  16,  1957  and consisted  at  the  relevant time of sections  68A  to  681. Section  68A contains definitions.  According to clause  (b) of  that  section, "State transport undertaking"  means  any undertaking  providing  road transport service,  where  such undertaking is carried on by,-(i) the Central Government  or a  State  Government; (ii) any  Road  Transport  Corporation established  under section 3 of the Road Transport  Corpora- tions  Act, 1950; (iii) the Delhi Road  Transport  Authority established  under  section 3 of the  Delhi  Road  Transport Authority   Act,   1950;  (iv)  any  municipality   or   any corporation  or  company owned or controlled  by  the  State Government.   Section  68B provides that the  provisions  of Chapter  IVA and the rules and orders made thereunder  shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent  therewith contained in Chapter IV of this Act or in any other law  for the time being in  force or in any instrument having  effect by virtue of any such law.    Sections  68C and 68D  at  the relevant time read as under :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

             "68C.   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  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               567               such other manner as the State Government  may               direct.               68D.  ( 1) Any person affected by  the  scheme               published under section 68C may, within thirty               days  from the date of the publication of  the               scheme   in   the   Official   Gazette,   file               objections    thereto   before    the    State               Government.               (2)   The   State   Government   may,    after               considering the objections and after giving an               opportunity    to   the   objector   or    his               representatives and the representatives of the               State transport undertaking to be heard in the               matter,  if they so desire, approve or  modify               the scheme.               (3)   The Scheme as approved or modified under               subsection (2) shall then be published in  the               Official  Gazette by the State Government  and               the  same  shall thereupon  become  final  and               shall  be called the approved scheme  and  the               area  or  route to which it relates  shall  be               called the notified area or notified route:               Provided that no such scheme which relates  to               any inter-State route shall be deemed to be an               approved  scheme unless it has been  published               in  the  Official Gazette  with  the  previous               approval of the Central Government." Chapter  IVA  incorporates special  provisions  relating  to State  transport  undertakings.   The  provisions  of   this chapter  and  the rules and orders made thereunder  have  in view of section 68B an overriding, effect and would  prevail even though they are inconsistent with anything contained in Chapter IV of the Act or any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any  law. Section  68C  enables  a  State  transport  undertaking,  as defined  in section 68A of the Act, to prepare a scheme  for nationalisation  of transport service, with the  particulars mentioned  in  the  section, in  case  the  State  transport undertaking  is  of  the 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 in  any particular class, of such service should be run  and operated   by  the  State  transport  undertaking   to   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

exclusion,   complete  or  partial,  of  other  persons   or otherwise.  It is also provided that such a scheme shall  be published  in  the Official Gazette and also in  such  other manner as may be directed by the State Government.   Section 68D enables the persons.  Jr affected by the scheme to  file objections   within  thirty  days  from  the  date  of   the publication  of the proposed scheme in the Official  Gazette before  the  State  Government.  The  State  Government  has thereafter  to  consider  the  objections  after  giving  an opportunity  to the objector or his representatives and  the representatives  of  the State transport undertaking  to  be heard in the matter.  Power is given to the State Government to either approve the scheme or modify the same.  The scheme as  approved or modified is then published in  the  Official Gazette  by  the State Government and thereupon  the  scheme becomes.  final.  The approved scheme then operates for  the area or the route to- 568 which  it  relates.  It is also provided that  if  a  scheme relates to an interState route, the game shall not be deemed to  be an approved scheme unless, it has been  published  in the  Official  Gazette  with the previous  approval  of  the Central Government’. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that a  State Government  cannot  approve a scheme for  inter-State  route under  section  68D of the Act as the powers  of  the  State Government  can operate within its own territory and  cannot operate  in  an area beyond the territorial  limits  of  the State.  This contention, in our opinion, cannot be  accepted as  it runs counter to the plain language of the proviso  to sub-section (2) of section 68D of the Act.  According to the proviso,  no  scheme which relates to an  inter-State  route shall be deemed to be an approved scheme unless it has  been published in the Official Gazette with the previous approval of   the   Central  Government.   The   proviso   manifestly contemplates  that  the State Government can  in  accordance with  the  procedure  laid down in Chapter IVA  of  the  Act approve  a  scheme  relating to  an  inter-State  route  and publish  the same.  The only limitation on the power of  the State  Government in this respect is that it  should  before publishing  the  scheme  obtain the prior  approval  of  the Central  Government.  Such previous approval of the  Central Government was admittedly obtained in respect of the  inter- State route with which we are concerned, as per letter dated February 19, 1963.  An inter-State route is  one  of   which one of the termini falls in one State and the other    in another  State.   Agra-Dholpur route is admitted  an  inter- State     route as the termini of the route are situated  in two  different States.  In the face of the proviso  to  sub- section (3) of section 68D of the Act, we find it  difficult to   accede  to  the  submission  that  the  Uttar   Pradesh Government  was  not competent to approve  and  publish  the impugned scheme relating to Agra-Dholpur route. There  is no force in the contention advanced on  behalf  of the  appellant that approval of the State Government  for  a scheme  relating  to  an inter-State route can  only  be  in respect of that portion of the route which is within its own territory  and  not  in respect of  the  entire  inter-State route.   If the approval of the State Government was  to  be accorded  in  respect of that portion of  inter-State  route which was within its own territory, there would have been no necessity  to  obtain  the prior  approval  of  the  Central Government.   A State Government is competent to  approve  a scheme  for nationalisation of transport service on a  route within  its  own  territory if it complies  with  the  other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

necessary  formalities prescribed by law.  There is in  such an event no necessity to obtain any approval of the  Central Government.   The necessity of obtaining prior  approval  of the  Central Government arises because the scheme  envisages nationalisation of transport service not only for that  part of  the  inter-State route which is within  the  territorial limits of the State Government approving the scheme but also for  the remaining part of the route which is.  outside  the said  territorial limits.  Inter-State route would  normally cover  the entire route and not merely the portion  of  the, route  which is within the territorial limits of  the  State Government which accords approval. 569 It  has  then  been argued by the learned  counsel  for  the appellants  that when a State Government approves a  scheme, it  makes law and as a State Government cannot make law  for areas outside its territorial limits, the scheme approved by the  State Government in respect of an inter-State route  is unconstitutional.    This  argument,  in  our  opinion,   is fallacious  and  untenable.  A scheme approved  by  a  State Government  is undoubtedly law as defined in clause  (3)  of article  13 of the Constitution, according to  which  unless the   context   otherwise  requires,  "law"   includes   any Ordinance,  order, bye-law, rule, regulation,  notification, custom  or usage having in the territory of India the  force of law.  The above definition of "law" is for the purpose of article  13 in the context of laws violative of  fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution.  The State Government  in approving a scheme does not legislate in  the sense the legislature of a State makes law under article 245 of the Constitution for the whole or any part of the  State. The  limitation on the power of a State Legislature to  make laws  for  the whole or any part of the State  and  not  for areas outside the territorial limits of the State cannot  be invoked  for  the purpose of placing a  restriction  on  the power  confined upon the State Government  by  Parliamentary legislation  to approve a scheme relating to an  inter-State route. Contention has also been advanced by the learned counsel for the  appellants  that the State Government  in  approving  a scheme  exercises  executive power.  Such  executive  power, according to the contention, cannot operate in areas  beyond the territorial limits of the State.  In this connection, we find that the Motor Vehicles Act was enacted by the  Central Legislature.  Chapter IVA of the Act containing the sections with  which we are concerned was inserted in the Act by  the Union  Parliament.   The  State Government  in  approving  a scheme in respect of an inter-State route under  sub-section (3)  of section 68D of the Act exercises a  statutory  power which has been vested in it by a law made by the Parliament. The said law related to the creation of a State monopoly  in the matter of transport service.  The executive power of the Union  and each State under article 298 of the  Constitution extends,  inter  alia, to the carrying on of  any  trade  or business.  There is nothing in article 298 to show that  the trade  or business carried on by a State must be  restricted to the area within its territorial limits.  On the contrary, the  article  envisages  the carrying on of  the  trade  and business  by  a State without any  territorial  limitations. The only restriction on the executive power of the State  in this  respect is contained in clause (b ) of the proviso  to that article.  According to that clause, the executive power of  the State shall, in so far as such trade or business  is not one with respect to which the State Legislature may make laws, be subject to legislation by Parliament.  Entry 35  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution relates  to mechically  propelled vehicles including the  principles  on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied.  Under, entry 21  in List III of the Seventh Schedule, the Parliament  can make  laws  for commercial and industrial  monopolies.   The expression "commercial and industrial monopolies". 570 as  held by this Court in the case of H.C.  Narayanappa  and Ors.  v. The State of Mysore and Ors. (1) is wide enough  to include  grant  or  creation  of  commercial  or  industrial monopolies  to the State and citizens as well as control  of monopolies. , Dealing with the question of State monopoly in the matter of transport service as envisaged by Chapter  IVA of  the Act, Shah J. speaking for the Court observed in  the above mentioned case               "The  amplitude of the powers under the  entry               in the concurrent list expressly dealing  with               commercial and industrial monopolies cannot be               presumed to be restricted by the generality of               the expression trade and commerce in the State               list.  If the argument of the petitioners  and               the  intervener that legislation  relating  to               monopoly  in respect of trade and industry  is               within  the exclusive competence of the  State               be  accepted,  the  Union  Parliament   cannot               legislate  to create monopolies in  the  Union               Government  in  respect of any  commercial  or               trading venture even though power to carry  on               any  trade  or business under  a  monopoly  is               reserved   to  the  Union  by   the   combined               operation  of Art. 298, and the law  which  is               protected  from the attack that  it  infringes               the  fundamental freedom to carry on  business               by  Art. 19(6).  We are therefore of the  view               that Chapter IVA could competently be  enacted               by the Parliament under entry No. 21 read with               entry No. 35 of the Concurrent List". A scheme approved by the State Government under  sub-section (3)  of  section 68D of the Act effectuates  the  object  of State  monopoly in the matter of transport service.  Such  a scheme, in our opinion, does not entail encroachment by  one State Government upon the executive sphere of another  State Government.    The  action  taken  by  the   Uttar   Pradesh Government  in  furtherance  of the  objective  of  a  State monopoly  in accordance with the statute made by  Parliament cannot,  in  our opinion, be struck down on  the  ground  of encroachment  upon  the  executive power  of  the  Rajasthan Government.    In  any  cast,  there  is  no   question   of encroachment  upon  the  executive domain of  the  State  of Rajasthan  in the present case as the whole thing  is  being done by the Uttar Pradesh Government with the concurrence of the  Government  of Rajasthan and the  two  Governments  are acting in concert. In  view  of the above, it is not necessary to go  into  the question  as  to whether the validity of the action  of  the Uttar Pradesh Government in according approval to the scheme can  be  sustained under clause (2) of article  258  of  the Constitution. The  appellants  have  not  challenged  the   constitutional validity of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 68D of the  Act.  It has, however, been urged on their behalf  that the  proviso should be construed in such a manner so as  not to  contravene  the articles of the  Constitution.   In  our opinion,  the  construction which we have  placed  upon  the aforesaid  proviso entails no contravention of the  articles

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

of the Constitution. (1)  [1960] 3 S.C.P. 742. 571 We may not deal with some of the cases which have been cited on  behalf of the appellants.  The case of King  Emperor  v. Sibnath Banerji and Ors. (1) related to the validity of Rule 26 of the Defence of India Rules framed under the Defence of India  Act,  1939.  The Rule was held to be valid.   It  was also  held that it was not necessary for the Governor to  be personally  satisfied before an order under the  above  Rule could  be  made.   Dealing with the  term  "executive",  the Judicial Committee held that it includes both a decision  as to  action and the carrying out of such a  decision.   Their Lordships further expressed disagreement with the view which sought  narrow reading of sections 49(2) and 124(2)  of  the Government of India Act, 1935.  The case of In re The  Delhi Laws Act, 1912 (2) related to the delegation of  legislative power and the ’difference between delegation of  legislative power and conditional legislation.  Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Ors. v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport  Corporation and  Anr.  (3) dealt with the procedure to be  followed  for nationalising  transport service.  None of the  above  cited cases,  in  our opinion, are of any real assistance  to  the appellants because the question involved in these appeals is materially different. There   is  no  force  in  these  appeals.   The  same   are accordingly dismissed with costs.  One hearing fee. P. B. R.               Appeal dismissed. (1)  72 I.A. 241. (3)  [1959] 1 Sapp.  S.C.R. 319. (2) [1951] S.C.R. 747. 572