Case: Ramesh Chand And Others  Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others

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 Section 68-C. He submitted that if the amended (sic amending) Sections 7 and 16 of the U.P. Act have the effect of modifying Section 68-C and Section 68-C itself would not be valid. According to the learned counsel the requirement of Section 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 co-ordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public sector 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 Section 68-C. Relying on a decision of this Court in B. H. Aswathanarayan Singh v. State of Mysore ((1966) 1 SCR 87 : AIR 1965 SC 1848 : (1965) 2 SCJ 824), the learned counsel submitted that if the requirement 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 Section 68-C would be lacking. The learned counsel referred to page 93 of the case ((1966) 1 SCR 87 : AIR 1965 SC 1848 : (1965) 2 SCJ 824) wherein the Court observed thatWhen Section 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 do not think that these details would necessarily consist of the precise number of vehicles and trips to be used on each route. 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 in the form of a minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips on each route. Strong reliance is placed on the requirement that the details of 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 maximum and minimum 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 that 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 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. 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 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. 10. 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 up inoperative. This contention again is not factually sustainable as the impugned scheme under Section 68-C which was notified in the U.P. Gazette on December 4, 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 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 the scheme for nationalisation of public transport.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]8. That this is the object is put beyond all doubt by introduction of the validating section, Section 16, which provides that in any scheme prepared or published under Section 68-C or approved or modified under Section 68-D 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 scheme prepared and published under Section 68-C or approved or modified and published under Section 68-D. The plea of the learned counsel therefore fails. In this view we hold that decision in Shashi Kant Rai v. Regional Transport Authority (AIR 1978 All 68  ) is erroneously decidedWe do not think that these details would necessarily consist of the precise number of vehicles and trips to be used on each route. 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 in the form of a minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips on each routeIt is thus clear that 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. 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 are therefore unable to accept the contention that the failure to specify the number of services would invalidate the draft scheme or the approved schemeThis contention again is not factually sustainable as the impugned scheme under Section 68-C which was notified in the U.P. Gazette on December 4, 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 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 the scheme for nationalisation of public transport.