KUMAON MOTOR OWNERS' UNION LTD. AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 121 · Decided: 08-10-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
A KUMAON MOTOR OWNERS' UNION LTD. AND ANOTHER 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
v. 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
October 8, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HriJAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Defence of India Rules, 1962 r. 131(2) (gg) ,and (1)-Powers under 
Defence of India Act 1962 s. 43. 
If prevails over s. 68 B of Motor 
Vehicles Act read withs. 6(4) of Defence of India Act-If order passed 
maJa fide to avoid payment of compensation. 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 s. 68B-Ch. IV A. 
The reopondent-State issued a notification under r. 131 (2)(gg) and (i) 
of the Defence of India Rules,. 1962 directing to stop plying of all vehicles 
belonging to the members of the appellant-union on a roU!e in the border 
region of the Country. 
The appellants filed writ petitions in the High 
Court, which were dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended 
that (i) the order was beyond the power of the State under r. 13 l ('.!) (gg) 
and (i) of the Defence of India Rules; 
(ii) on a combined reading of 
s. 6( 4) of the Defence of India Act and s. 68B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 
the provisions of Ch. IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act with regard to the 
framing of schemes and payment of compensation must be complied with 
even where action is taken under r. 131 (2) (gg) and (i) of the Defence 
of India Rules, and the action was mala fide; (iii) s. 44 of the Defence ' 
of India Act had been contravened by the order; and (iv) the satisfaction 
necessary for passing the order under the Act and the Rules had not. been 
shown by affidavits filed on behalf of the State and therefore the condi-
tion precedent to the passing of such an order was absent. 
HELD: (i) The order passed by the State Government was clearly 
wi'hin its powers under r. 131(2)(gg) and (i) of the Defence of India 
Rules. [130 HJ 
When cl. (gg) envisaged prohibition or restriction of carriage of 
persons or goods by any vehicle or class of vehicles, it meant that the 
order would apply to persons plying such vehicles. [127 A) 
The impugned order was good so long it came within r. 131(2) (gg) 
even though it may diminish the profit making capacity of a commercial 
undertaking or even reduce it to nothing in a particular line of busi-
ness. [130 B-C] 
Clause (i) of r. 131(2) was complementary to the other clauses of 
r. 131(2). When the S'ate decided to issue a orohibition under cl. (gg), 
it must naturally provide for alternative mechodo for the carriage of 
persons or goods on the prohibited route and cl. (i) clearly makes provi-
sion for this. [130 D-E) 
(ii) Section 43 of the Defence of India Act must prevail in the conflict 
which appears to be apparent between s. 43 on one hand and s, 68B 
of the Motor Vehicles Act read with s. 6(4) of the Defence of India Act 
on the other. S. 43 appears in an Act which is later t?an Motor Vehicles 
Act 
and in such a situation unless there is anythmg repugnant. the 
pro~isions in the later Act must prevail; looking at the object bc~!nd the 
two statutes, the Act which was passed to meet an emergency ansmg out 
122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1966] 2 S.C.R. 
of foreign invasion of the country must prevail over an Act meant to 
A 
meet a situation arising out of the taking over of motor transport by the 
state; and s. 43 emphatically says that the Defence of India Act will 
prevail over any other enactment and this suggests that the legislature 
intended that the emergency legislation in the Defence of India Act will 
be paramount if there is any inconsistency betwen it and any other provi-
sion of any o·hor law wha'soever. [128 A-G) 
The argument that the entire Motor Vehicles Act must be read as a 
II 
part of the Defence of India Act must be rejected and in consequence 
l), 43 of the Defence of India Acl will have over-riding effect. The \Vord-5 
"shall have effect" in s. 6( 4) of the Defence of India Act, have to be 
read in the context of that sub-section and in that context means !ha' 
the Motor \r'ehic1e·s Act will continue a:s before subject to am.endn1ents 
mad•o by s. 6( 4). [129 B-E] 
There was no question of the order being mala fide or been passed as a 
device to avoid payment of compensation under Ch. IV A. The fact that at 
one stag·z nationalisation and consequent payment of compensation under 
Ch. IV-A was under consideration docs not mean that if eventually action was 
taken under s. 131(2) (gg) to stop acthities prejudicial to the defence of the 
country such action wa• ma/a fide or was merely 

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