RAMESH CHAND ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS (2)

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 498

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P.S. KAILASAM, A.P. SEN

Case summary

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. special leave by stating "Special leave granted confined to the alleged conflict betweens.

Judgment text

RAMESH CHAND ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS September 4, 1979 [S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P. S. KAILASAM AND A. P. SEN, JJ. ] / 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 'SD of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Validity of the sche1ne for inter 3fate ran1ie ARra-Dholpur and of ARra region. 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" achemes 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 1'pe 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 E are therefore nnable to accept the contention that the failure to specify the number of services would invalidate the draft scheme or the approved scheme. Tl]e learned counsel Mr. Shanti Bhushan submitted that in any event as the maximum or minimum number of buses, vehicles and ·F 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 ~u 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 RAMESH v. U. P. STATE (Kailasam, J. ) 505 routes taken over by country-type vehicles with 30 to 45 seats capa- A: 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 B 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. c V. D. K. Appeals and petitions dismissed,