ORDER

1. Though the case has been called twice, the appellants are not present in person. We have taken the assistance of Shri K.S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. The controversy raised in this case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Ramesh Chand v. State of U.P. where this Court had held that :

"Failure to specify the number of services would not invalidate the draft scheme under Section 68-C or the approved scheme under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939."

Same is the question in these appeals also. Under these circumstances, the omission to specify the number of services in the approved scheme does not invalidate the scheme already approved.

3. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.