LexSARASWATI DEVI & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,L_
SARASWATI DEVI & ORS.
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
November 4, 1980
{Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C. J., P. N. BHAGWATI, V. R. KRISHNA IYER,
S. MURTAZA lf'AZAL ALI AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1959, sections 68C and 68D, scope of-Objections
involving comparison of the pre-existing road transport services wi1h those
prepared in a scheme are relatable to the ingredients of section 68C and are,
therefore admissible under section 68D of the Act.
"t
Uttar Pradesh State Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1958, rules
5(v) and 7(2)(iv), scope of-Summoning of witnesses and production of wit-
11esses, explain~-d.
Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court
HELD:
(I) A bare reading of sections 68A to E contained in Chapter
IV-A, which was added to the Act by Central Act JOO of 1956, makes it clear
that they provide for nationalisation of road transport services.
However,
such nationalisation, in view of the provisions of section 68C, is not nationa-
lisation for
nationalisation's
sake but
nationalisation with a
view to the
achievement of certain specified objects.
Unless a scheme conform~ to the
two conditions referred to in section 68C, namely, (a) the S.T.U. i'S competent
to prepare and publish a scheme under section 68C only after it has formed
the opinion that it is necessary in the public interest that road transport
services covered by the scheme should be run and operated by itself,
whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of ·other persons or otherwise;
and (b) the necessity for the road transport services te- be run and operated
by the S.T.U. must flow, in its opinion, from the purpose of providing an
efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service,
it will fall outside the ambit of section 68C. [l012A, 1013H, 1014A-Cl
Section 68D gives the right to certain persons, associations and authorities
to file objections to a scheme published under section 68C within the specified
period of thirty days of its publication and also lays down the procedure
for the hearing and disposal of such objections by the State Government.
The procedure provided in section 68D is designed to -
(a) enabie parties
affected by
the scheme to
point out
flaws therein;
(b) enable the State
Government to find out which flaws, if any, the scheme suffers from, and
(c) enable the State Government either to remedy the flaws by a suitable
modification of the scheme or to rescind the scheme altogether. Under section
68(2), every objector or his representatives
and the
representatives of the
S.T.U. have to be given an opportunity of being heard in the matter and it
is only thereafter that the State Government has to exercise its power to
approve or modify the scheme, which power includes the power not to approve
the scheme at all and to drop it in its entirety. [1014D-F]
Malik Ram v. State of Rajast/zan, [1962] 1 S.C.R. 978 at 981, followed.
1005
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
10@'6
A
B
c
D
E
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1981] 1 S.C.R.
Section 68D does not specify the type of objections envisaged by it but
then their purpose being to point out flaws in the scheme they must be confined
to the matters covered by se,~tion 68C. If the opinion forming the basis of
the scheme does not suffer from errors such as may render it abnoxious to
the dictates of section 68C and on the other hand, conforms to the conditions
laid down in that section, the scheme would be unobjectionable.
Objections
may thus be made to show: (a) that it is not necessary in the public interest
for the concerned road transport services to be operated by the S.T.U.; (b) that
it is not necessary in the public interest that such services be taken over by
the S.T.U. to the complete exclusion (if such exclusion is envisaged by the
scheme) of other persons and that their partial exclusion would suffice; (c) that
it is not necessary in the pub.lie interest that such services shall he taken over
by the S.T.U. even to the partial exclusion of others; (d) that the scheme is
not calculated to provide an
1~fficient road transport service;
(e) that the
scheme would not provide an adequate road transport service; (f) that the
road transport service envisaged by the scheme would not be economical; or
(g) that the road transport service provided for by the scheme would suffer
from lack of proper coordination. [1014H, 10!5A-E]
Objections falling outside these seven categories would notExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.