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

PETITIONER: SABIR HUSSAIN & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/11/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (1) 626        1995 SCALE  (6)777

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3488 OF 1979 Virendra Singh V State of U.P. & Ors.                          O R D E R      Though the  case has  been called twice, the appellants are not  present in  person. We have taken the assistance of Shri K.S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the State.      The controversy  raised in  this case is covered by the judgment of  this Court  in Ramesh  Chand v.  State of  U.P. [(1980) 1  SCR 498]  where this Court had held that "failure to specify number of services would not invalidate the draft scheme under  Section 68  C or  the  approved  scheme  under Section 68D  of the  Motor Vehicles  Act, 1939". Same is the question in  these appeals  also. Under these circumstances, the omission  to specify  the  number  of  services  in  the approved scheme  does  not  invalidate  the  scheme  already approved.      The  appeals  are  accordingly  dismissed  but  in  the circumstances without costs.