SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., H.R. KHANNA, K.K. MATHEW, A. ALAGIRISWAMI AND P.N. BHAGWATI, JJ.
Ch. Khazan Singh etc., Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1737-1745 of 1972.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1870 and 1871 of 1972.
Amar Transport Roadways and another, Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1737-1745 of 1972 and 1870 and 1871 of 1972. D/-.
3-12-1973
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – Section 68-A to 68-I, 68D (2) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 227, 258 (2), 13, 245, 298 and 19 (6) - Motor Vehicles Act, 1956 - Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 – Section 3 - Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950 - Section 3 - Defence of India Act, 1939 - Government of India Act, 1935 - Sections 49 (2) and 124 (2) - Delhi Laws Act, 1912 - Regional Transport Authorities - Granted Permits - Validity of Schemes - Whether to exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise, State transport undertaking may prepare a scheme giving particulars of nature of services proposed to be rendered - Whether validity of action of Uttar Pradesh Government in according approval to scheme can be sustained under clause (2) of Article 258 of Constitution – Held, Appellants have not challenged constitutional validity of proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of Act - It has, however, been urged on their behalf that proviso should be construed in such a manner so as not to contravene articles of Constitution - In Court opinion, construction which Court have placed upon aforesaid proviso entails no contravention of articles of Constitution – Court may now deal with some of cases which have been cited on behalf of appellants - Case of King-Emperor v. Sibnath Banerji, related to validity of Rule 26 of Defence of India Rules framed under Defence of India Act, 1939 - Rule was held to be valid - It was also held that it was not necessary for Governor to be personally satisfied before an order under above Rule could be made - Dealing with term "executive", Judicial Committee held that it includes both a decision as to action and carrying out of such a decision - Their Lord-ships further expressed disagreement with view which sought narrow reading of Sections 49 (2) and 124 (2) of Government of India Act, 1935 - None of above cited cases, in Court opinion, are of any real assistance to appellants because question involved in these appeals is materially different - Appeals dismissed.
Judgment
KHANNA, J.:- The validity of schemes approved by the Uttar Pradesh Government under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act 4 of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for inter-State routes as a result of which private operators including those who had been granted permits by Regional Transport Authorities of Rajasthan were excluded from those routes has been called in question in civil appeals Nos. 1737-1745 of 1972 and civil appeals Nos. 1870 and 1871 of 1972 which have been filed on certificate against the common judgment of the Allahabad High Court. This judgment would dispose of all the appeals. It would be necessary to reproduce only the facts of the case giving rise to civil appeal No. 1738, for the counsel for the parties are agreed that the decision in that appeal would also govern the other appeals as the question of law involved in all these appeals is identical.
2. On June 14, 1960 a letter was sent by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan to the Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh in reply to an earlier letter received from the Transport Commission, Uttar Pradesh conveying approval of the Rajasthan Government for the nationalisation of the undermentioned routes for the operation of services by the State transport undertakings of both States in accordance with its reciprocal arrangement arrived at between the two States.
1. Bharatpur-Agra
2. Bharatpur-Mathura
3. Allwar-Mathura
4. Mathura-Kama Kosi via Goverdhan
5. Agra-Dholpur
We are in the present appeals concerned with four of the routes, i.e. the routes mentioned above other than Bharatpur-Mathura route. Appeal No. 1738 of 1972 relates to Dholpur-Agra route. It may be mentioned that Dholpur, Bharatpur, Alwar and Kama Kosi are situated in Rajasthan, while Agra and Mathura are situated in Uttar Pradesh. Notification dated December 4, 1961 was published in the U. P. Gazette dated December 9, 1961 by the Uttar Pradesh Government under Section 68-C of the Act in respect of a proposed scheme for providing State road transport passenger services on inter-State Agra-Dholpur route. According to the proposed scheme, no persons other than State transport undertaking would be permitted to provide any road transport services on the route or portions thereof. The scheme also visualised the cancellation of the permits which had been granted to the private operators, including the appellants. Objections were invited with regard to the proposed scheme from persons affected by the scheme. No objections were, however, filed against the aforesaid scheme and the same was approved under Section 68-D (2) of the Act by the Joint Judicial Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, who was the hearing authority, as per order dated July 30, 1962. The Central Government conveyed its approval to the scheme under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act as per letter dated February 6, 1963. Notificatin dated February 20, 1963 was published by the Uttar Pradesh Government in the Official Gazette dated March 16, 1963 for the publication of the approved scheme under sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act. Clauses 1, 2, 4 and 8 of the scheme read as under:
"1. The State Road Transport Passenger Services shall commence to operate from April 1, 1963 or thereafter.
2. State Road Transport Passenger Services shall be provided on the inter-State route Agra-Dholpur of Agra Region.
4. No persons other than the State Transport Undertakings will be permitted to provide any Road Transport Services on this route or portions thereof specified in clause (2) above.
8. The number of private Transport vehicles on the route or portion thereof specified in clause (2) above shall be reduced to nil." It was also provided in the scheme that the permits of the private operators would stand cancelled. Provision was made for compensation for the premature cancellation of the permits of the private operators. No compensation was however, to be paid when a permit
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.