B. H. ASWATHANARAYAN SINGH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 87 · Decided: 23-04-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH, J.R. MUDHOLKAR, S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
87 
A 
B. H. ASWATHANARAYAN SINGH AND OTHERS 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. 
STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS 
April 23, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKA.R, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, J. c. SHAH, 
J. R. MUDHOLKA.R ANDS. M. SJKRI, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 193~). ss. 68C and 68E-Specification of' 
maxinium and ntini.mum number of vehicles and trips 
in approved 
1eheme-Validity-brJer-State route, what is-Hearing ob;ections on behalf' 
of State Government-Who should. 
The State Transport Undertaking published a scheme in the Gazette· 
for taking over the routes mentioned therein to the entire exclusion of 
the existing operators, 
Objections to the scheme were heard by the 
Chief Minister and the approved scheme with modifications was published: 
The draft scheme was published when the Rules of 1960 were in force 
an<l, the approved scheme after the Rules of 1963 had come into force. 
Writ petitions were filed by various bus-operators challenging the validity 
of the approved scheme but they were dismissed. 
In their appeal to this Court, the appellants contended ·that : (i) It 
was not open, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Rules there-
under, to the State Government, when approving the scheme to specify 
minimum and maximum number of motor vehicles to be put on each 
route and the minimum and maximum number of trips to be made on each. 
route and in so far as the approved scheme made such a provision it 
was ulrra vires; (ii) As the draft scheme only specified the maximum 
number of vehicles and trips as required by the 1960 Rules, but the ap-
proved scheme provided both for minimum and maximum number of 
vehicles and trips on each route as required by the 1963 Rules, there 
was no opportunity to the objectors to put forward their objections to 
that feature of the scheme; (iii) Rule 3 els. (e) and (f) and rule 12, 
of the 1963 Rules, which provided for the specification of the maximum 
and minimum number of vehicles and trips in the scheme and for vari-
ation of the frequency of services on a notified route without exceeding 
the maximum number, were ultra vires; (iv) The scheme could not be 
deemed to have been approved as it related to inter-State routes and: 
the approval of the Central Government had not been obtained; and ( v) 
The Crief Minister was not competent to hear objections on behalf of 
the State Government, but that it should have been done by the Minister 
in charge of Transport. 
HELD : ( i) The specifying of both minimum and maximum number 
of vehicles and trips in the scheme was in accordance with the provisions 
of s. 68C and was not hit by s. 68E and w .. valid .. [98 F-0] 
Section 68C itself provides that "particulars of the nature of the 
services to be rendered" should be given in the scheme and the intention 
is that such details should be given as are necessary to enable the ob-
jectors to make their objections. When the section speaks of the nature 
of services to be rendered, it refers to the classes of motor vehicles 
for carrying passengers or goods or both, and the scheme has to indicate, 
which class of service is to be taken over. Also, the word "particulars" 
should be given its ordinary meaning of "details". There may be some 
.ss 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ l 966] I S.C.R. 
.. difficulty in working out a scheme contaitiitii ~inimum a.pd 
maximum 
number of vehicles and trips, where exclusion is partial as compared to a 
..case where exclusion is oomplete, but the task of making a pruper ad-
justment by the Regional Transport Authority is not insuperablo 
and 
therefore, such -a difficulty would not change the meaning of the word 
''.particulars." 
Such details of the nature of services proposed to be 
render~ include not only the pr:ecisc pumber of vehicles and trips bur 
.. also th!! minimum and m.aximum number of vehicles and trips on each 
. route; and such indication· of the maximum and minimum number gives 
lhe necessary information . to enable objectors to oppose the scheme ·even 
with reference to the adequacy of the service proposed to be rendered. 
:Further, s. 46(c) and s. 48(3) (ii) indicate that specification of the mini-
mum and maximum number of trips and vehicles is 
envisaged by the 
Act, and it is permissible and legitimate to refer to those sections, Besides, 
such a specification would subservc the purpose of Chap. IV-A of-.the 
AQt, inasmuch as it will provide foi" a certain amount of flexibility in 
i.th.c service to be rendered. 
Such a provision for flexibility 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.