SABIR HUSSAIN AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1995 INSC 812
- Decided
- 30 November 1995
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- K RAMASWAMY
Holding
The omission to specify the number of services in an approved scheme does not invalidate the scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Summary
Sabir Hussain and another appealed against the State of U.P. challenging the validity of a scheme approved under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 on the ground that the scheme failed to specify the number of services. The question before the Supreme Court was whether such an omission would render the approved scheme invalid. Relying on the earlier decision in Ramesh Chand v. State of U.P., the Court held that the failure to specify the number of services does not affect the validity of a draft or an approved scheme under Sections 68C, 68D (or 680) of the Act. Consequently, the omission was deemed a non‑fatal defect and did not invalidate the scheme. The appeals were dismissed without costs, leaving the scheme in force.
Issues considered
- Does the omission to specify the number of services invalidate a scheme approved under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939?
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 680, s. 68C, s. 68D
Subjects
Judgment
SABIR HUSSAIN AND ANR. A
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 30, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, .JJ.] B
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 : Sections 68C, 68D.
Approved scheme-Omission to specify number of se1vices-Held does
not invalidate the scheme.
c
The question in these appeals is whether omission to specify number
of services would invalidate the scheme already approved under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court D
HELD : The omission to specify the number of services in the
--r approved scheme does not invalidate the scheme already approved. [16-B]
Ramesh Chand v. State of U.P., [1980] 1 SCR 498, relied on.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3487 of
1979 Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.10.79 of the Allahabad High
Court irt C. Misc. W.P. No. 1567 of 1978.
F
Appellants-in-person (NIP).
---~.
K.S. C_hauhan and R.B. Misra for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
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 H
15
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995} SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A Court had held that "failure to specify number of services would not
invalidate the draft scheme under Section 68C or the approved scheme
trnder Section 680 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.
B
The appeals are accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances
without costs.
T.N.A. Appeals dismissed.
•
-
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.