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

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 U.P2. 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 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 7 and Section 16 of the U.P. Amendment Act of 1976, (27 of 1976)".

Court's reasoning:
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.