LexKHAZAN SINGH ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
562
KHAZAN SINGH ETC. ETC.
Y.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
December 3, 1973
(A. N. RAY, C. J., H. R. KHANNA, K. K. MATHEW,
A. ALAGIRJSWAMI AND P. N. !BHAGWATJ, JJ.]
Constitution of lrldfa, lit •tor Vellic/es Act, s. 68~No.tio11alisation of l11Ur·
Stat~ blJS. routes-Whether State Government could approve the Scheme-Whether
approval of a scire me amounts to lcgfslatiorz-Art. 298-Wilet/ier em·isages the carrying
011 of trade and busilrtss withh1 any territorialllmlt ony.
8
In accordance with a reci~ arranaement arrived at between the Governments
of U.P. and Rajasthan certam bus routes between these two States had been nationa·
Iised .. Under the proposed scheme, approved under s. 680 or the Motor Vehicles
C
Act, 1939 (4 or 1939) which was duly approved by the Central Government under
the proviso to sub-s. 3 of s. 680, no person other than the State Transport Under·
t~kin1 was pennitted to provide any road transport services on the routes or por-
tions thereof and permits which had already been granted to private operators were
cancelled. The High Court held that the impugned schemes and notifications were
valid in law.
In appeal to this Court it was contended (i) that a State Government cannot
approve a scheme for inter-State route under s. 680 of the Act as the power of the
D
State Government can only operate within its own territory; (ii) that as a State
Government cannot make law for areas outside its territorial limits, tho schrme
approved by it in respect of inter-State routes is unconstitutional and (iii) that in
npprovlng a scheme a State Government exercises executive power which cannot
operate in areas beyond the territorial limits of the State.
Dismissing the appeals,
HELD : The contention runs counter to the plain language of the proviso to sub·
s. (3) of s. 680. In the face of the proviso it is difficult to hold that the U.P.
Government was not competent to approve and publish tlleim PU$!1ed scheme.
The proviso mainfestly contem{'lates that the State Government can, m accordance
with the procedure laid down m Ch. IVA of the Act, approve a scheme relating
to an inter-State route and publish the same. In the instant case the previous
approval of the Central Government was admittedly obtained in respect of the
two different States. (568B-E]
,
(b) lfthe approvalofthe State Government was to be accorded in respect of that
portion of inter-St:1tc route which was within is own territory. there would have
been no necessity to obtain the prior approval of the Central Government. The
necessity of obtaining prior approval of the Central Government arises because the
scheme envisages nationalisation of transport service not only for that part of the
inter-State which is within the territorial limits of the State Government approving
the scheme but also for the remaining part of the route which is outside the said
territorial limits. ·Inter-State route would normallY cover the entire route and not
merely the portion of the route which is within the territorial limits of the State
Government which accords approval. f568G-H]
(ii) The State Government in approving a scheme docs not legislate in the sense
the legislature of a State makes law under art. 245 of the constitution for the
wbole or any part of the State. The limitation on the power of a State Legislature to
make laws for the whole or any part of the State and not for areas outside the
t"rritorial limits of the State cannot be invoked for the purpose of pla.c.ing a restric-
tion on the power conferred upon the State Government by Parliamentary Jegis-
J::ltion to approve a scheme relatin& to an inter-stat~ route. [569 C-D)
(iii) The executive power of the Union and each State under Art. 298 of the
CoDStitution extends to the carryina on of any trade or business. There is nothinJ
in art. 298 to ·show that the trade or business carried on by a State n !1st
E
F
G
H
B
c
[
? f
t
' I ,
I
I[
rJfAl,AN SIKG!l V, U.P. STATE (Khanna,].)
563
•
'ctcd tO the area with!n its temtorial _limits. The article Cll\''
tc r~tn on of tmdc and busmess by a State "'!bout any tenitoriallirnit ~ces the
c:>t~Ylllllapproved by the St~te Government under sub-s. (3) of s. 680 elf~ •ons. A
"~of State monopoly 10 the matter of transport service. Such a sch.:;:,tcs tlfe
ob;«<ntail encroachment by one State Go\'crnmcnt upon the e~<e~.n i'-e
b doer
l)('t ~r State Government. In the inst~nt case there is no q~ion of •P = 0
!1110 1'uExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.