Holding

Sections 7 and 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 validly remove the requirement to specify the number of services in both draft schemes under section 68C and approved schemes under section 68D, rendering the impugned scheme valid.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the validity of a transport scheme prepared by the Uttar Pradesh State Transport Undertaking under sections 68C (draft scheme) and 68D (approved scheme) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The scheme did not specify the exact number of services (buses, trips) to be provided, and the Allahabad High Court had held it defective. Uttar Pradesh amended its Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act 1976 by inserting sections 7 and 16, declaring that a specification of the number of services is not an essential requirement for schemes under either 68C or 68D and validating such schemes. The Court had to decide whether these amendment provisions applied only to approved schemes or to both draft and approved schemes, and whether the impugned scheme was therefore invalid. It held that sections 7 and 16 validly cover both 68C and 68D, making the number‑of‑services requirement non‑essential, and consequently the scheme remained valid. The earlier decision in Shashi Kant Rai v. Regional Transport Authority was overruled. All appeals, special‑leave petitions and writ petitions were dismissed with costs.

Issues considered

Do sections 7 and 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 apply to schemes prepared under section 68C as well as to those approved under section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939?
Does the failure to specify the number of services in a draft or approved scheme render the scheme invalid?
Is the transport scheme for the Agra‑Dholpur inter‑state route operative despite the omission of exact service numbers?

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 68C, s. 68D
Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Special Provisions Act, 1976s. 16, s. 7

Subjects

Motor Vehicles ActSection 68CSection 68DUttar Pradesh amendmentSpecification of number of servicesTransport scheme validationPublic interestDraft schemeApproved scheme

Judgment

4118

A 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.] /
B
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.
c
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<:ial leave petitions.
D 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 require-
ment 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 servicei r
E llOt an essential requirement of section 68C or section 6.8D", 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. l'he result would be that if one of the require-
ments of section 68C is that it should specify the number of services to be
F provided, it shall be deemed that that requirement was never there. The refe-- '
rence to the approved scheme is because section 68C and section 680 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 provides that in any scheme pre-
pared or published under section 68C or approved or modified under section
680 of the Principal Act shall not be deemed to be invalid on the ground
G of number of serviCes to be provided being not specified ther'ein. •
[502F-H, 503A]
Shashi Kant Rai & Ors. v. Regional Tran.sport Authority, Varanasi Region
•nd Ors. AIR 1978 All. 68 over-ruled. '
2. Failure to specify the number of services would not invalidate the
'1raft scheme under section 68C or the approved scheme under section 68D
H of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It cannot be said that when the word
"particulars" is used in this p;trt of section 68C, it can only be satisfied if
the exact number of vehicles and trips for each rank is specified, and, ta.at
RAMESH V. U.P. STATE 499

there is no other way of satisfying the requirement implicit in the use of the A
\Vord "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 schetne as ¥.'ell as the approved scheme need not specify the num-
ber of services. [5fJ4C-E]

B. B. Aswathanarayan Singh & Ors. v. State of Mysore & Ors. [1966} 1
SCR 67, applied. B

. ( 3) In the instant case, the lmpugned scheme cannot be held tn 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 &ea.ts capacity. Moreover, this objection which was not taken before the
c
scheme was approved in 1963 would not be allowed to be taken after a lapse of
15 year" [504 G-H, 505 A-B]

Ov1L APPELLATf. JURISDICTION : Ovil Appeal Nos. 804-810 of
1977.
D
Appeal~ by Special Leave fromthe Judgment and Order dated
20-10-76 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 1529,
1530, 1564 and 1568 to 1571/63.
AND
WRIT PETITIONS Nos. 650, 651, 652-653, 48, 394, 395, 69 l, E
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 aml P
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. B!tartari for the Appellant in C.A. 804/77. G

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-SlO/
77 and W.P. 650, 651, 652, 653, 395, 691, 670, 680, 681, 687,
H
688/79 and other cases.
5han•i Dhushan, P. C. Bhartari for the Petitioner in W.P. 394/79.
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

.A 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.
Y. S. Chitaley, Ral Narain Munshi and Sobhagmal Jain for RR
7 in W.P. 48/79.
B I
Raj Narain Munshi, Sobhagmal Jain and S. K. Jain for RR 7, in
W.P. 651, 652, 653, 394, 395, 691, 670, 680, 681, 687-688/79.
P. B. Sharma for RR 8 in W.P. 48/79.
0. P. Rana for the Intervener, State of U.P.
c 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.

D 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 r
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.

In terms of the restricted leave granted, we do not think it is strict-
F •
ly open to the learned counsel to raise tbe 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 permis-
sion to the learned counsel to raise this question.

'The point that is raised by Mr. Garg is that the introouction of
G
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.

ff 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 : -
RAMESH v. U.P. STATE (Kailasam, !.) 501

"Where any State transport undertaking is of op1mon A
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 that road 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 the State transport undertaking, B
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 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 c
be published in the Official Gazette anid also in such other
manner as the State Government may direct."
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- D
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, (3) such
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 E
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
F
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
G
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 H
over the effects of the decision the U.P. Legislature introduced the
(I) A.LR. 1978 All. 6S
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
B 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
c 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
D
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
E 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.

F 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$
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 con-
G tained in Section 68C or Section 68D of the principal Act shall be
deemed to require ...... " The operation of the section is 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
H 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
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- B
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.
When the arguments of Mr. Garg on this point and the reply
c
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, oec. 68-C itself would not be valid. According to the learned D
counsel the require~cnt of sec. 68-C is tha+ 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
•I necessary in the public interest that the road transport services should
be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking. In order E
to 1111tisfy the requirements the learned counsel submitted that the
schemo should give ( 1) particulars of the nature of the services pro-
posed 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 F
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
G
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 that the
details of the nature of services proposed to be rendered m~y not B
only be in the form of a precise number of vehicles and trips but also
(!) [1966] I S.C.R. 87.
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] ! S.C.R.

.A in the form of minimnm and maximum number of vehicles and trips
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
·B statement is explained in the next two sentences where 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 the indication of minimum and maximum
number of vehicles and trips for each route would give the necessary
,.C 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
tJ> 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 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 type and their
~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
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
is futile for them to raise the plea after a lapse of about 15 years. B
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,