RAMESH CHAND ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 498 · Decided: 04-09-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
4118 
RAMESH CHAND ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 
September 4, 1979 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P. S. KAILASAM AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Sections 68C read with Sections 7 & 16 of the 
U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 (Act 127 /76), scope of-
Sections 7 and 16 of Act 127 of 1976 relates both to section 68C and 68D 
i.e. to the draft scheme under section 68C and approved scheme under section 
'SD of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Validity of the sche1ne for inter 3fate 
ran1ie ARra-Dholpur and of ARra region. 
On the question whether sections 7 and 16 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles 
(Special Provisions) Act, 1976 (Act 127 of 1976) related only to "approved" 
achemes under section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, the 
approved scheme for inter-state range Agra-Dholpur of Agra 
region 
was 
inoperative, the Court, while dismissing the Writ Petitions and the connected 
1'pe<:ial leave petitions. 
HELD : (1) Sections 7 and 16 of U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special Pro-
visions) Act, 1976 have validly provided that the specification of the number 
of services is not and shall be deemed to have never been an essential require-
ment in a scheme prepared and published under section 68D of the Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1939. 
[503A-B] 
The marginal note to section 7 states "specification of number of servicei 
llOt an essential requirement of section 68C or section 6.8D", makes the 
intention clear that the section is intended to cover section 68C also. 
The 
intention is also carried out by the Section providing that "Nothing contained 
in section 68C or section 68D of the Principal Act shall be deemed to 
require ...... " 
The operation of section 7 is thus intended to apply both 
to sections 68C and 68D. 
l'he result would be that if one of the require-
ments of section 68C is that it should specify the number of services to be 
provided, it shall be deemed that that requirement was never there. The refe--
rence to the approved scheme is because section 68C and section 680 form 
part of the same procedure of publication of a scheme and approval of the 
scheme. 
That this is the object is put beyond all doubt by the introduction 
of the validation section, section 16, which provides that in any scheme pre-
pared or published under section 68C or approved or modified under section 
680 of the Principal Act shall not be deemed to be invalid on the ground 
of number of serviCes to be provided being not specified ther'ein. 
[502F-H, 503A] 
Shashi Kant Rai & Ors. v. Regional Tran.sport Authority, Varanasi Region 
•nd Ors. AIR 1978 All. 68 over-ruled. 
2. Failure to specify the number of services would not invalidate the 
'1raft scheme under section 68C or the approved scheme under section 68D 
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 
It cannot be said that when the word 
"particulars" is used in this p;trt of section 68C, it can only be satisfied if 
the exact number of vehicles and trips for each rank is specified, and, ta.at 
/ 
r 
' 
• 
' 
.. 
• 
RAMESH V. U.P. STATE 
499 
there is no other way of satisfying the requirement implicit in the use of the 
A 
\Vord "particulars''. 
The exact number of vehicles and trips for each route 
need not be given and all that section 7 of the amended Act provides is that 
the draft schetne as ¥.'ell as the approved scheme need not specify the num-
ber of services. 
[5fJ4C-E] 
B. B. Aswathanarayan Singh & Ors. v. State of Mysore & Ors. [1966} 1 
SCR 67, applied. 
( 3) In the instant case, the lmpugned scheme cannot be held tn be inoperative 
for non-mentioning of the maximum or minimum number of buses, vehicles and 
trips, since the scheme notified in U.P. Gazette on 4-12-1961 gave the required 
particulars. 
A reading of the scheme would indicate that transport vehicles and 
services would be provided on the routes taken over by country-type vehicles with 
30 to 45 &ea.ts capacity. Moreover, this objection which was not taken before the 
scheme was approved in 1963 would not be allowed to be taken after a lapse of 
15 year" 
[504 G-H, 505 A-B] 
Ov1L APPELLATf. JURISDICTION : Ovil Appeal Nos. 804-810 of 
1977. 
Appeal~ by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
20-10-76 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 1529, 
1530, 1564 and 1568 to 1571/63. 
AND 
WRIT PETITIONS Nos. 650, 651, 652-653, 48, 394, 395, 69 l, 
670, 680, 681, 687-688/79, 412-415, 416-418/79. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution 
AND 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SPE

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