KALYAN SINGH versus STATE OF U. P.

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 76 · Decided: 11-12-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

76 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP. 
KALYAN SINGH 
t'• 
STATE OF U. P. 
(B. P. 
~INHA, C.J., K. SuBBA RAo, J. C. SHAH, 
RAGHUBAR DAYAL and J. R. MuoHOLKAR, JJ.) 
. . Road. TraMport-Nalilmaliaut.on of roulu-S<.M<M-lni-
tialwn by Blau Ootier1tmu1t, if invalid-CanctllalU>11 of permit 
-11'/aether can 
b< 
chalungtd-Motor Vthiclu Act, 
1939 
(4 of 1939), sa. 680, 68D and 68F. 
The appellant, whose permit for pl}·ing stage carriage 
was ~hortly to expire, applied for its renewal. The .renewal 
application was published in the Gazette calling for objections. 
The State Government published a notification p1oposlng to 
nationalise the route. The permit was renewed for three rears 
for a part of the route but an endorsement was made thereon 
authorising the appellant to ply on the remaining part of the 
route for four months. The appell.lnt died objection& to the 
proposed 
scheme for 
nationa ... ation. The objections were 
heard 
by the Joint Secretarf, Judkial Departtncnt, who 
approved the scheme with certain inodifications. The scheme 
was published in the Gazette. Thereaftor, a 
notification was 
issued under s. 68F of the Motor Vehicles Act cancelling the 
appellant's renewed pennit. Undor the Scheme the stage 
carriages of the State Transport Undertaking could ply on the 
route without obtaining permits. The appellant challenged 
the validity of the ocheme and the cancellation of his licence. 
Htltl, that the scheme was valid and the appellant's 
licence was properly ot.ncelled. 
Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Ad re~ the 
schtmo to be 
initiated by the State 
'rraiu~ Unclcrtakillg. 
Even though \he. scheme in the~ 
cast was actlfally ini-
tiated by the State Government there was no non-compliance 
with the provisions of s. 68C. There was no dlft'erenc:e bctwccri 
an undertaking run by a department of the State Govenunent 
an~. that run by 
the State Gov<Ttlment. In either cue the 
undertaking was run hy the State and it was a State transport 
undcrtaking within the meaning of s. 
68C. 
Initiation of the 
scheme by the State Government running an undertaking wu 
initiation by the statutory authority i.e., the State Transport 
undertaking. The appellant could not be allowed to challenge 
the validity of the scheme on the around that the Joint Se<:re-
tary was not lawfully i11verted with the au!l'ority to hear _objl'C-
tions and to approve the scheme as the pomt wu not raiM:d •t 
the proper stage. 
•
' 
,• 
(2) S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 
77 
Gullapalli Nageswara R"o v. Andhra 
Prarlesh State Roa4 
Transport Corporaticn, [1959] Supp. I S.C.R. 319, applied. 
The scheme having been validly promulgated and having 
become final under s. 680(3) it had the effect of extingui5hin~ 
all rights of the appellant to ply his. sra~.e carriage under his 
permit and he could n'>t m'lintain a petition under Art. 221) of 
the Constitution. The order passed by the Regional Transport 
Authority cancellin"{ the appellant's permit was purely con<; .. 
quential on the scheme and could not be 
challenged if the 
scheme was valid. Once the right of tho 
appellant to ply his 
stage carriag;e was validly 
extinguished he could not question 
the right of the State transport authority to 
ply their stage 
carriages with or without permits. 
Ab.dul Gafoor, Proprietor, 
Shaheen Motor Service v. State 
of My.ore, A.LR. 1961 S.C. 1556, applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 325/61. 
. 
Appeal from the ju'1gment and deoree dated 
March 6. 1961. of the Allahabad High Court in Writ 
No. 3116 of 1960. 
WITH 
Petitions Nos. 180, 181 and 205 of 1961. 
Petitions Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of 
India. for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
S. N. Kacker and J. P. Goyal, for the appel-
lant (In C.A. No. 325/61) and the petitioner (In 
Petn. No. 205/61 ). 
H.N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of Indi.a, 
K. L. Misra, Advi>cate-General, U. P.H. N. Seth, J. K. 
Srivast'/Ja and 0. P. Lal, for the respondents (in 
C.A.No. 325/6,l and Petn. No. 205 of 1961). 
J. P. Goyal, for the petitioners (In petitions 
Noa. 180 and 181 of 1961 ). 
0. P. Lal,, for the respondents (In Petitions 
Nos. l80and 181of1961). 
1961. December 11. 
The Judgment ofthe 
(J{)urt was delive:red by 
SHAH, J.-The appeal and the writ petitions 
pnctically raise the same points and may 
be 
Ks/yan Sin!h 
v. 
St11.tt of U. P. 
S!Wi J, 
1961 
Ka(Ntl Singh 
v, 
Stat1 of U.P. 
~/tah J. 
78 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962) SUPP. 
disposed of together. At the out.set
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.