RAMESH CHAND ETC. ETC v. STATE OF U.P & Ors.

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 betweens. 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, submittrd that there is no conflict E 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. F G In terms of the restricted leave granted, we do not think it is strict ly open to the learned counsel to raise tbe plea which he has before us. But as several matters are involved and there is a conflict between two judgments of the Allahabad High Court we gave permis sion to the learned counsel to raise this question. 'The point that is raised by Mr. Garg is that the introouction of sections 7 and 16 by the Amending Act 27 of 1976, the Uttar Pra desh Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 does no~ dispense with the requirements specified iu sec. 68C as the two sections 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 : - I r • • RAMESH v. U.P. STATE (Kailasam, !.) 501 "Where any State transport undertaking is of op1mon that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public inte.rest transport services in general or any particular class ot such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run and operated by transport undertaking, the State whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of othe.r persons or otherwise, the State transport undertaking may prepare a scheme giving particulars of the nature of 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 anid also in such other manner as the State Government may direct." (3) the proposed Sec. 68C requires the State Transport Unde<taking to prepare a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be render ed, the area or route proposed to be covered and such other particu lars respecting thereto as may be prescribed. It is thus necessary that tl1e scheme should give (I) particulars of the services proposed to be rendered; (2) the area or route proposed to be covered, other particulars thereto as may be prescribed. The 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 particulars regarding the adequacy etc. of 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 give its decision whether the draft scheme will be able to provide road transport services which would fulfil the four purposes mention ed 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 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 (I) A.LR. 1978 All. 6S A B c D E F G H • • • 502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 1 ~.C.R. A 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 iu 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, approv ed 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 the.rein." 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 lli approved scheme under sec. 68-D where the number of services provided is not mentioned. The learned counsel would read 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 service3 not an essential requirement of Section 68C or Section 68D." The intention therefore is to make specification of number of servic$ sections 68C and 68D. The not an essential requirement under section therefore is intended to cover sec. 68-C also. the· intention is carried out by the section providing that "Nothing con tained in Section 68C or Section 68D of the principal Act shall be deemed to require ...... " The operation of the section thus. intended to apply both to sec. 68-C 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 that requirement was never there. The reference to the approved scheme is because see. 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 It is seen B c D E F G H ' • I RAMESH v. U.P. STATE (Kailasam, J.) 5 03 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 grounrl 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 all essential requirement in a scheme pre pared 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. scheme to be rendered; When the arguments of Mr. Garg on this point and thereto were heard, Mr. Shanti Bhushan, the learned counsel for one of the appellants, submitted that he may be permitted to 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, oec. 68-C itself would not be valid. According to the learned counsel the require~cnt of sec. 68-C is tha+ before a 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 1111tisfy the requirements the learned counsel submitted schemo should give ( 1) particulars of the nature of the services pro to be (2) area or covered and such other particulars respecting thereto as may two requirements with which we are be prescribed. The first concerned are under sec. 68-C. Relying on a decision of this Court in B. H. Aswathanarayan Singb & Ors. v. State of Mysore and Ors.(1) the learned counsel submitted that if the requirement as to specifica tion ot 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 shoold be given as are necessary to enable the objectors to make their objections. We see no difilculty in holding details of the nature of services proposed to be rendered m~y not only be in the form of a precise number of vehicles and trips but also route proposed (!) [1966] I S.C.R. 87. B c D E F G B 504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] ! S.C.R. .A ,.C tJ> E ·B statement is explained in the next two sentences where in the form of minimnm and maximum number of vehicles and on each route." Strong reliance is placed on the requirement that the details of the nature of services should not only be in the form of precise number of vehicles and trips buf also in the form of minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips on each route. But this the Court stated : "Furnishing of minimum and maximum number of vehicies and trips for each route would also in our opinion satisfy the require ment that particulars should be furnished of the services proposed to be rendered. Further 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 praposed 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 s~tion, 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 are therefore nnable to accept the contention that the failure to specify the number of services would invalidate the draft scheme or approved scheme. ·F Tl]e 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 the U.P. impugned scheme under sec. 68C which was notified in 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 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 pro vided 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 ~u carrying capacity shall be 30 to 45 seats. Clause 7 mentions the per mits which have been cancelled. A reading of the scheme would indicate that transport vehicles and services will be provided on the type and -{; _, • RAMESH v. U.P. STATE (Kailasam, J.) 505 routes taken over by country-type vehicles with 30 to 45 seats capa city. 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 tenancity 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, A: B c