ivil Appeal Nos
804 810 of 1977
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 20 10 76 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petitions Nos
1529 1564 and 1568 to 157163
AND WRIT PETITIONS Nos 650 651 652 653 48 394 395 691 670 680 681 687 68879 412 415 416 41879
Under Article 32 of the Constitution AND SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NOS
5193 5196 and 17 551779 From the Judgment and order dated 20 10 1976 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc
Writ Nos
1523 1544 1528 1541 and 152763
RK Garg PC Bhartari for the Appellant in CA 80477
G L Sanghi and PC Bhartari for the Petitioner in WP No 4879 and in SLP Nos
5193 5196 and 551779
P C Bhartari for the AppellantPetitioners in CA 805 810 77 and WP 650 651 652 653 395 691 670 680 681 687 68879 and other cases
Shanti Bhushan PC Bhartari for the Petitioner in WP 39479
500 SV Gupte Raj Narain Munshi and Sobhagmal Jain for RR
7 in CA Nos
804 81077 and WP Nos
65079 and SLP C Nos
5193 519679 and 551779
YS Chitaley Raj Narain Munshi and Sobhagmal Jain for RR 7 in WP 4879
Raj Narain Munshi Sobhagmal Jain and SK Jain for RR 7
in WP 651 652 653 394 395 691 670 680 651 687 68879
PB Sharma for RR 8 in WP 4879
OP Rana for the Intervener State of UP
In all these appeals writ petitions and special leave petitions the challenge is against the validity of the scheme framed by the State Transport Undertaking of UP
In giving special leave in Civil Appeals Nos 804 to 810 of 1977 this Court restricted the special leave by stating Special leave granted confined to the alleged conflict between section 68c of the and sections 7 and 16 of the UP Amendment Act of 1976 Act 1271976
When the hearing in these matters started Mr Garg learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no conflict between sec
68C of the and sections 7 and 16 of the UP Amendment Act
But his plea is that the amendment has not in any way affected or cured the defect in sec
68C and there fore the defect in the scheme continues to render it invalid In terms of the restricted leave granted we do not think it is strictly open to the learned counsel to raise the plea which he has taken before us
But as several matters are involved and there is a conflict between two judgments of the Allahabad High Court we gave permission to the learned counsel to raise this question
The point that is raised by Mr Garg is that the introduction of sections 7 and 16 by the Amending Act 27 of 1976 the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Special Provisions Act 1976 does not dispense with the requirements specified in sec
68C as the two section relate only to approved schemes
In order to appreciate learned counsel s contention it is necessary to set out sec
68C of the 
Section 68C reads as follows 501 Where any State transport undertaking is of opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient adequate economical and properly coordinated road transport service it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run and operated by the State transport undertaking whether to the exclusion complete or partial of other persons or otherwise the State transport undertaking may prepare a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered the area of route proposed to be covered and such other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed and shall cause every such scheme to by published in the official Gazette and also in such other manner as the State Government may direct
 Sec
68C requires the State Transport Undertaking to prepare a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered the area or route proposed to be covered and such other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed
It is thus necessary that the scheme should give 1 particulars of the services proposed to be rendered 2 the area or route proposed to be covered 3 such other particulars thereto as may be prescribed
The scheme prepared under sec
68C did not specify the number of services to be provided
The Allahabad High Court in Shashi Kant Rai  ors
vs Regional Transport Authority Varanasi Region  ors
held that if the particulars regarding the adequacy etc
Of the proposed transport services are not given in the draft scheme then it will not be possible for the objectors to file any effective objection to the draft scheme in this regard and it would be difficult for the Hearing Authority to give its decision whether the draft scheme will be able to provide road transport services which would fulfil the four purposes mentioned in sec
The Court held that the draft scheme must give particulars indicating how the proposed transport services would be efficient adequate economical and properly coordinated
The scheme mentioned adequate number of State transport services according to traffic requirements are to be provided on the route or the portion thereof mentioned in cl
2 above
The learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court were of the view that the draft scheme prepared under sec
68 C was defective as the minimum number of services and the vehicles which were proposed to be introduced on the road had not been mentioned
In order to get over the effects of the decision the UP Legislature introduced the 502 Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Special Provisions Act 1976 UP Act No 27 of 1976
Section 7 of the Act reads as follows Nothing contained in section 68C or section 68D of the principal Act shall be deemed to require or ever to have required a specification being made in an approved scheme of the number of services to be provided
 Section 16 of the Act is the validating section and runs as follows Notwithstanding any judgment decree or order of any court any scheme prepared or published under section 68C or approved or modified under section 68D of the principal Act or purporting to have been prepared published approved or modified shall not be deemed to be or have been in valid on the ground of the number of the services to be provided being not specified therein Mr R K Garg the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that sec
7 is applicable only to approved schemes ie for a scheme which had been approved under sec
68D3 and that its object is to cure the defect in approved scheme under sec
68 D where the number of services provided is not mentioned
The learned counsel would reach the section that nothing contained in the principal Act shall be deemed to require or ever to have required a specification of the number of services to be provided in an approved scheme
He would emphasise the words approved scheme and submit that the change if any is as regards the particulars required under an approved scheme under sec
68 D and that this section would not relate to the scheme under sec
The marginal note to sec
7 states Specification of number of services not an essential requirement of Section 68C or Section 68D The intention therefore is to make specification of number of services not an essential requirement under sections 68C and 68D
The section therefore is intended to cover sec
68 C also
It is seen the intention is carried out by the section providing that Nothing contained in Section 68C or Section 68D of the principal Act shall be deemed to require   The operation of the section is thus intended to apply both to sec
68C and 68 D
The result would be that if one of the requirements of sec
68 C is that it should specify the number of services to be provided it shall be deemed that requirement was never there
The reference to the approved scheme is because sec
68 C and section 68 D form part of the same procedure of publication of a scheme and approval of the scheme
That this is the object is put beyond all doubt by introduction of the validating 503 section section 16 which provides that in any scheme prepared or published under sec
68 C or approved or modified under sec
68D of the principal Act shall not be deemed to be invalid on the ground of number of services to be provided being not specified therein
We are satisfied that sections 7 and 16 of the Act have validly provided that the specification of the number of services is not and shall be deemed to have never been an essential requirement in a scheme prepared and published under sec
68 C or approved or modified under sec 68 D
The plea of the learned counsel therefore fails
In this view we hold that the decision in Shashi Kant Rai and ors
v Regional Transport Authority Varanasi Region and Ors
supra is erroneously decided
When the arguments of Mr Garg on this point and the reply thereto were heard Mr Shanti Bhushan the learned counsel for one of the appellants submitted that he may be permitted to raise the question of validity of sec
68 C He submitted that if the amended sections 7 and 16 of the UP Act have the effect of modifying sec 68 C sec
68 C itself would not be valid
According to the learned counsel the requirement of sec
68 C is that before a scheme is prepared and published the State Transport Undertaking must be of the opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient adequate economical and properly coordinated road transport services it is necessary in the public interest that the road transport services should be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking
In order to satisfy the requirements the learned counsel submitted that the scheme should give 1 particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered 2 area or route proposed to be covered and such other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed
The first two requirements with which we are concerned are under sec
68 C Relying on a decision of this Court in B H Aswathanarayan Singh  ors
vs State of Mysore and Ors
the learned counsel submitted that if the requirement as to specification of the number of services to be provided in the draft scheme is dispensed with the particulars of the nature of services proposed to be rendered as required in sec
68 C would be lacking
The learned counsel referred to page 93 of the case supra wherein the Court observed that when sec
68 C provides for giving particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered the intention is that such details should be given as are necessary to enable the objectors to make their objections
We see no difficulty in holding that the details of the nature of services proposed to be rendered may not only be in the form of a precise number of vehicles and trips but also 504 in the form of minimum and minimum number of vehicles and trips on each route
 Strong reliance is placed on the requirement that the details or the nature of services should not only be in the form of precise number of vehicles and trips but also in the form of minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips on each route
But this statement is explained in the next two sentences where the Court stated Furnishing of minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips for each route would also in our opinion satisfy the requirement that particulars should be furnished of the services proposed to be rendered
Further the indication of minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips for each route would give the necessary information to enable the objectors to oppose the scheme even with reference to the adequacy of the services proposed to be rendered
 We do not think that the appellants are right in submitting that when the word particulars is used in this part of the section it can only be satisfied if the exact number of vehicles and trips for each route is specified and that there is no other way of satisfying the requirement implicit in the use of the word particulars
It is thus clear that the exact number of vehicles and trips for each route need not be given and all that sec
7 of the amended Act provides is that the draft scheme as well as the approved scheme need not specify the number of services
The decision relied on by the learned counsel makes it clear that the number of vehicles and trips for each route need not be specified
We 15 are therefore unable to accept the contention that the failure to specify the number of services would invalidate the draft scheme or the approved scheme
The learned counsel Mr Shanti Bhushan submitted that in any event as the maximum or minimum number of buses vehicles and trips have not been mentioned the scheme should be held to be inoperative
This contention again is not factually substainable as the impugned scheme under sec
68C which was notified in the UP Gazette on 4 12 1961 gave the required particulars
Clause 3 of the scheme stated Adequate number of State Road Transport passenger services according to traffic requirements are to be provided on the route mentioned in clause 2 above
The provision of Transport service otherwise than under the scheme is prohibited
 Clause 2 provided that State Road Transport passenger services shall be provided on the inter State route Agra Dholpur of Agra Region
Clause 6 provided that the Transport Vehicles which may be used on the route indicated in clause 2 above shall be of country type and their carrying capacity shall be 30 to 45 seats
Clause 7 mentions the permits which have been cancelled
A reading of the scheme would indicate that transport vehicles and services will be provided on the 505 routes taken over by country type vehicles with 30 to 45 seats capacity
There is no material to show that any of the operators or others entitled to object to the scheme raised this objection before the scheme was approved in the year 1963
When specifically asked whether such an objection was taken to the draft scheme the learned counsel for the appellants were unable to say that the objection was taken
We feel it is futile for them to raise the plea after a lapse of about 15 years
There is no substance in any of the contentions raised
One cannot but express amazement at the tenacity of the operators in stalling any scheme for nationalisation of public transport
The appeals special leave petitions and writ petitions are dismissed with costs
VDK Appeals and petitions dismissed


Summary:
On the question whether sections 7 and 16 of the UP Motor Vehicles Special Provisions Act 1976 Act 127 of 1976 related only to approved Schemes under section 68D of the and therefore the approved scheme for inter state range Agra Dholpur of Agra region was inoperative the Court while dismissing the Writ Petitions and the connected special leave petitions
 HELD 1 Sections 7 and 16 of UP Motor Vehicles Special Pro visions Act 1976 have validly provided that the specification of the number of services is not and shall be deemed to have never been an essential requirement in a scheme prepared and published under section 68D of the 
503A B The marginal note to section 7 states specification of number of services not an essential requirement of section 68C or section 68D makes the intention clear that the section is intended to cover section 68C also
The intention is also carried out by the Section providing that Nothing contained in section 68C or section 68D of the Principal Act shall be deemed to require  The operation of section 7 is thus intended to apply both to sections 68C and 68D
The result would be that if one of the requirements of section 68C is that it should specify the number of services to be provided it shall be deemed that requirement was never there
The reference to the approved scheme is because section 68C and section 68D form part of the same procedure of publication of a scheme and approval of the scheme
That this is the object is put beyond all doubt by the introduction of the validation section section 16 which provides that in any scheme prepared or published under section 68C or approved or modified under section 68D of the Principal Act shall not be deemed to be invalid on the ground of number of services to be provided being not specified therein
502F H 503A Shashi Kant Rai  ors
vs Regional Transport Authority Varanasi Region and ors
AIR 1978 All
68 over ruled
Failure to specify the member of services would not invalidate the draft scheme under section 68C or the approved scheme under section 68D of the 
It cannot be said that when the word particulars is used in this part of section 68C it can only be satisfied if the exact number of vehicles and trips for each rank is specified and that 499 there is no other way of satisfying the requirement implicit in the use of the A word particulars
The exact number of vehicles and trips for each route need not be given and all that section 7 of the amended Act provides is that the draft scheme as well as the approved scheme need not specify the number of services
504C E BB Aswathanarayan Singh  Ors
vs State of Mysore  ors  applied
3 In the instant case the impugned scheme cannot be held to be inoperative for non mentioning of the maximum or minimum number of buses vehicles and trips since the scheme notified in UP Gazette on 4 12 1961 gave the required particulars
A reading of the scheme would indicate that transport vehicles and services would be provided on the routes taken over by country type vehicles with 30 to 45 seats capacity
Moreover this objection which was not taken before the scheme was approved in 1963 would not be allowed to be taken after a lapse of 15 years
504 G H 505 A B