Failure to specify the number of services does not invalidate an approved scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Approved Scheme - Failure to Specify Number of Services
Fact of the Case:

The appellants were not present in person, and the State's counsel represented them. The controversy was whether the failure to specify the number of services in the approved scheme would invalidate the scheme.
Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the appeals, stating that the omission to specify the number of services in the approved scheme does not invalidate the scheme already approved.
Issues: Controversy over the validity of an approved scheme due to the failure to specify the number of services.
Ratio Decidendi: Failure to specify the number of services would not invalidate the approved scheme under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed without costs.

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1995 Supreme(SC) 1242

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAK Ramaswamy, S B Majmudar SABIR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER, APPELLANTS; VERSUSSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS. VIRENDRA SINGH, APPELLANT; VERSUSSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS. Civil Appeals Nos. 3487-88 of 1979, decided on 30th November, 1995.

Failure to specify the number of services does not invalidate an approved scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K Ramaswamy, S B Majmudar
SABIR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER, APPELLANTS;
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS. VIRENDRA SINGH, APPELLANT;
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeals Nos. 3487-88 of 1979, decided on 30th November, 1995.