C.P. SIKH REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE ETC. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS.

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 10 · Decided: 05-09-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

10 
C.P. SIKH REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE ETC. 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASIITRA & OTHERS. 
September 5, 1974 
[A. 'N. RAY, C.J., K.K. MATHEW AND V.R. KRISHNA IYER JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Ace-1939-ss. 2( 1); 2(28) and 68C-Scope of. 
Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 says that where any State 
Transport Undertaking is of opinion that it is necessary in the public interest 
thal road transport services in general should be run and operated by the Road 
Transport Undertaking it may prepare a scheme giving particulars of the area 
or route proposed to be covered and shall cause every such scheme to be published 
in the official gazette. Section 2 (I) says that unless there is anything repugnant 
A 
B 
in tbe subject or context in relation to any provision of the Act, area means such 
C 
area as the State Government may, having regard to that provision, specify by 
notification in the official gazette. 
The State Government established the Road 
Transport Corporation µnder s. 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act 1950. 
The Corporation prepared a scheme proposing to operate stage carriage services 
in the entire State and on all routes and ·portions thereof falling within the 
said area to the complete exclusion of all other persons. The scheme approved 
by the State Government was published in the gazette. The appellants who were 
transport operators in the State challenged the validity of the scheme. The Jfigh 
D 
Court dismissed the writ petitions. 
On appeal to this Court it was contended that it was necessary for the State 
Government to have specified the area by notification because wher~ver the word 
'area' occurs in the Act the meaning to be. given to that word is the one given 
in s. 2( 1) unless there is something requgnant in the context or the subject 
matter in s. 68C. 
Dismissing the appeals. 
HELD: (a) In the con.text of s. 680-the word 'area' does not mean an area 
specified by the State Government in a notification in the gazette in accordance 
with the substantive part of the definitio,n clause 2(1 ). The context in which the 
word occurs makes the application of the substantive part of the definition 
repugnant. 
[13F) 
(b) The word 'area' concurring in s. 68C does not have the same meaning 
as the word 'route' in the section. A route postulates an area; but for that reason 
it cannot be said that the legislature made no 
distinction between the 
two. 
'Area' is defined in S.2(1) and that definition does not speak of any route. 
Route is defined in S.2(28) of the Act. In fact "area" and "route" are distinct: 
Otherwise the legislature w<luld not have found it necessary to provide a separate 
definition clal!lse for route. [14D; GI 
(c) If in respect of a scheme in relation to a route or routes, it is not 
necessary that the State Government should make a notification specifying the 
route or routes, there is no reason why the Stale Government should specify the 
urea by a notification in the gazette for framing a scheme in relation to 
an 
area. 
It is impossible to understand the rationale behind the distinc•ion 
why 
when n scheme is framed in relation to an area a notification in the 
gazette 
specifying its extent is necessary and why when it is framed in relation to a route 
or routes a notification specifying the route or routes is not required. 
[15B-C] 
CIVJL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 614 to 635 
and 663 of 1974 and 664 to 668 of 1974, and 669 tcj 678 of 1974 
and 688 to 718 of 1974. 
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 
19th and 22nd March of 197 4 and 2nd April, 197 4 of the Bombay 
E 
F 
G 
H 
c. P. SIKH MOTOR SERVICE v. MAHARASHTRA (Mathew,/.) 
,11 
A 
High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Special avil Applications Nos. 1704. 
1705, 1707, 1710-1716, 1709, 1719-1722, 1729-1731, 1756 and 
1706 of 1973 and 384 of 1974 and 1776 of 1973, and 3180-81, 
3183·84 and 3139 of 1974 and 1760, 1763, 175~. 1782 cl, 1973 ancl 
31of1974 and 1708, 1755, 1757, 1765, 1773, 1775, 1777-78, 1780, 
1783, 1787-89 of 1973 and 57-58 of 1974 respectively. 
8 
Special Leqye Petitions (Civil) Nos. 1389-1390 of 1974. 
c 
D 
E 
From the judgment and order dated March 19, 1974 of the Bom-
bay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Special Civil Application Nos. 
1789 of 1973 and 61 of 1974. 
M; N, Phadke, G. L. Sanghl, P. H. Palshikar, C. G. Madkholk/Jr 
and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellants in C.A. Nos. 614 to 635,, 
664 to 678, 689 to 717 of 1974. 
G. D. Sanghi,. P. H. Palshikar, C. G. Madkh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.