SHRI ROSHANLAL GAUTAM versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 841 · Decided: 26-10-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
• 
SHRI ROSHANLAL GAUTAM 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS 
October 26, 1964 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, R.AGHUBAR DAYAL AND 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.) 
Nationalisation of Transport Services-Scheme prohibiting private 
operators from specified routes-Whether affects rights of operators holding 
permits ·related not to routes but to specified area-Scheme whether satis-
fies provisions of statute-Services provided under scheme whether ade-
fuate-Section 68C Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as amended by Motor 
Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956. 
The appellant, the holder of a permit in respect of contract carriages in 
the Agra region challenged a scheme framed by the Uttar Pradesh Govern-
ment nationalising road transport services in the. Agra region and pro-
hibiting private operation of the services on certain specified routes. His 
writ petition before the High Court having been dismissed and Lettel'li 
Patent Appeal also having failed he appealed to the Supreme Court, by 
special leave. 
Three contentions were advanced on behalf of the appellant : (1) 
The scheme was only a reproduction of an earlier scheme under s. 3 
of the U.P. Road Transport (Development) Act, 1955 which had been 
struck down by the High Court. The requirements of s. 68C of the Motor 
Vehicles Act were quite different from those of s. 3 of the U.P. Act, and 
the scheme did not answer them. (2) Under s. 68C of the Motor Vehicles 
Act the State was under an obligation to provide 'adequate' transport ser-
,;ces to replace those already in operation, but the scheme provided only 
for 16 contract carriage services. 
As the number of these services could 
be changed under the scheme, the latter would be again open to challenge 
whenever the change was effected. 
(3) The scheme was not properly 
framed because it provided for the operation of contract carriages on 
certain routes to the exclusion of the appellant who held a permit for an 
area irrespective of any route or routes. 
HELD : The appeal must be dismissed. 
( i) It is no doubt true that while s. 68C makes a mention of an "effi-
cient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport ser-
vice" "in the public interest", the U.P. Act merely mentioned "the interest 
of the general public" "subserving the common good or for maintaining and 
developing efficient transport system". 
However it would be wrong to 
think that even under the U .P. Act GoYernmenl would not think of an 
"adequate", "economical" or "property coordinated" road transport services 
for the common good and for maintaining and developing an efficient road 
transport system. The change in the language is no doubt there but the 
intention underlying the words is the same, and even if the exact words of 
s. 68C might not have been present before the framers ·of the scheme, it is 
quite obvious that they took into account those very factors. 
Indeed the 
use· of the words "adequate State road 'transport contract carriage service" 
in cl. (3) of the scheme reproduced the language of s. 68C and not that 
of s. 3. 
This suggests that the requirements of s. 68C were probably 
borne in mind. [845 B-F] 
842 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1965] I S.C.R. 
(ii) The .1ichen1e \Vas rca.d as providing sixteen contract carriane!> and it 
A 
~}ts not constdcrcd whether 11 woulU hecomc ina<lcqu:.i1c in the fut~rc. 1846 
(iii} Under the i\1~tor Vehicles Act there i.;, no douh1 a distlnctio!1 
bet"'·ecn area and route in some of the sections but in others that dis1inl:tion 
docs not seem 10 be preserved. 
The pro,·isions of s. 51 ( 2) ( i) clearly show 
tha~ t~e area ~t the commencement of the peClTlit can he cut down hy 
~ot.Jf)'Jng ccrto1n routes and there seems to be no bar to doing it later 
1n vie"· of the. scheme ~f nationalisa1ion. 
By taking away one of the 
B 
routes the area lS as cffccttvcly cut do'-'"·n as when an ~1reJ is included in the 
permit but rout~'i. arc indicated on v.·hi~h .alone the contract carri:iges can 
ply. 
The prov1s1ons of s. 688 also 1nd1catc that power is reserved to 
modify the existing permits either by curtailing the area or by curtailing 
dac routes. 
Taking over of certain routes cxchL~ivcly for the State under· 
takings renders that ponion of the area inetrecti\'e for a private operator 
such as the appellant who hol<ls the permit for the whole area including 
C 
those routes. [848 B-GJ 
C.P.C. Motor Services, Mysore '" State of Mysort. [1962] Supp. I 
S.C

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