GAJRAJ SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 344 · Decided: 01-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
GAJRAJ SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
MAY 1, 2001 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., R.C. LAHOTI AND 
DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section JOO-Publication of draft scheme 
by competent authority calling for objections for nationalisation of 
C Saharanpur-Shahdra-Delhi route-Publication of revised draft scheme 
pursuant to the direction by Supreme Court in Shri Chand v. Government of 
U.P.,-Draft scheme prepared by the authority for 38 additional routes besides 
Saharanpur-Shah«ra-Delhi route-Implementation of the scheme by the 
authority under the Act-Direction to the authority to approve the scheme 
D by Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Verma and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 
for Saharanpur-Shahdra-Delhi route-Authority approving the scheme in 
entirety for all the routes-Approving the additional 38 routes before calling 
for objections-Validity of-Held, right to file objections is a valuable right-
Direction to the authority to call for objections against the draft scheme 
relating to the 38 routes-Section 68C-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-
E Constitution of Jndia--Artic/e J 9(J)(g). 
State Road Transport Corporation published a draft scheme in 1959 
under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to nationalise Saharanpur-
Shahdra-Delhi route. Operators filed Writ Petitions against the proposed 
scheme before High Court. The High Court upheld the scheme against some 
F operations and quashed the same against 50 operators as no opportunity for 
hearing was granted. This Court upheld the judgment of the High Court in 
Jeewan Nath Waha/ v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (C.A. No. 1616 
decided by SC on 3.4.1968). Due to pendency of the scheme for over 20 years 
on account of legal disputes, this Court in Shri Chand v. Government of U.P., 
G [1985) 4 sec 169 quashed the scheme and directed the State Government 
to frame the scheme afresh. Pursuant to the direction, the Transport 
Corporation drafted another scheme in 1986 for 39 routes which included 
the Saharanpur-Shahdra-Delhi route. When the draft scheme was pending, 
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force. The government authority 
H held the proposed scheme to have lapsed under section 100 of the Act of 
344 
GAJRAJ SINGH v. STATE 
345 
•• 
1988. This Court in Ram Krishna Verma and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., A 
[1992) 2 SCC 620, which was confined to Saharanpur-Shahdra-Delhi route 
)A 
only, directed the competent authority to approve the scheme. The competent 
authority approved the scheme in its entfrety which included the remaining 
,,, 
38 routes also. Several petitions were filed by the petitioners before High 
Court against the approval of the remaining routes. The High Court dismissed B 
the petitions. Hence these appeals and interim applications. 
Disposing of the appeals and interim applications, the Court 
r 
HELD: 1.1. The provisions for nationalisation of routes and excluding 
<rv 
operation on such routes by private operators consequent thereupon are c 
' ' 
reasonable restrictions in public interest on the fundamental right to carry 
on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It is on the 
' .. 
hearing of the objections that the competent authority would form an option 
on the question whether the proposed nationalisation would provide a 
convenient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport 
service and therefore it was necessary to do so in public interest. The right D 
to file objections and to secure hearing thereon is statutorily provided and 
..i. 
is a valuable right of the private operators who would be eliminated, completely 
·or par:tially from operation on the routes covered by the scheme depending 
upon how and to what extent it is approved. The decision of this Court in Ram 
Krishna Verma and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., does not refer to the 38 
routes and therefore this Court has not excluded the hearing in so far as E 
such 38 routes are concerned. Such exclusion of right of hearing cannot be 
read in the judgment by implication. A doubt arising from reading a judgment 
of the Court can be resolved by assuming that the judgment was delivered 
consistently with the provisions of law and therefore a course or procedure 
in departure from or not in conformity with statutory provisions cannot be F 
said to hav~ been intended or laid down by the Court unless it has been so 
stated specifically. (349-H; 350-A-D] 
___. 
1.2. In the peculiar facts and circumst

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