STATE OF U P Vs. SHASHI KANT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question, which arises for determination in this appeal by the State Government, is whether, in the draft scheme prepared under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, particulars regarding the adequacy of the services proposed to be rendered by the State Transport Undertaking are required to be given or not. The learned Single Judge, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in B.H. Aswathanarayana Singh etc. v. State of Mysore, AIR 1965 SC 1848 has held that such particulars are required to be given and, in case they are not given, the draft scheme would be defective and liable to be quashed. The main argument of the learned Standing Counsel is that the learned Single Judge has not correctly interpreted the Supreme Court decision and that, upon a proper reading thereof and of the provisions of the Act, it is clear that no particulars regarding the adequacy of the road transport services proposed to be rendered need be given in the draft scheme. Section 68-C of the Act is in these words:-

(2.) THE State Government has first to form an opinion that it is necessary in the public interest to provide State transport service on a particular route for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated service. Once it has formed this opinion, the State Government may prepare a draft scheme. The scheme must give (i) particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered; (ii) particulars of the area or route proposed to be covered; and (iii) such other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed. The draft scheme is to be published for inviting objections thereto. In Capital Multi-purpose Co- operative Societies v. State of M. P., AIR 1967 SC 1815, the Supreme Court has observed that it is open to take objections to the proposed scheme in the light of the four purposes set out in Section 68-C. The requirement Giving particulars is two-fold, namely, (i) to enable the persons mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 68-D to file objections to the draft scheme by showing that the purposes set out in Section 68-C will not be fulfilled by it; and (ii) to enable the Hearing Authority to decide whether the purposes, for which the scheme has been prepared, will be fulfilled by it or not. Therefore, the particulars to be given in the draft scheme must show how the scheme will fulfil the four purposes set out in Section 68- C, so that the objectors can properly file their objections and the Hearing Authority can properly decide whether the scheme will fulfil the four purposes or not. If 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 objections 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 Section 68-C. In our opinion, the scheme of Sections 68-C and 68-D clearly indicates that the draft scheme must give particulars, indicating how the proposed transport services would be efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated.

(3.) IN Aswathanarayana Singh's case, AIR 1965 SC 1848, the draft scheme mentioned the maximum number of vehicles which were to be put on the route proposed to be nationalised and the approved scheme mentioned the minimum as well as the maximum number of vehicles to be put on the route. The main contention that was raised before the Supreme Court was that the scheme must mention the precise number of vehicles and trips and the mention of only the minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 68-C. In this case, at the time when the draft scheme was framed, the rules prescribed the giving of the maximum number of vehicles and this was complied with in the draft scheme. The rules, at the time of the approval of the scheme, prescribed both the minimum and maximum to be given and this was done in the approved scheme. There was thus no complaint about not giving the particulars prescribed by the rules. The question, which arose for determination before the Supreme Court, was whether the requirement of Section 68-C to give particulars of the nature of the services to be rendered could be satisfied only by mentioning the precise number of vehicles and trips in the draft scheme or also by the giving of minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips therein. The Supreme Court held that both the giving of the precise number of vehicles and trips as well as the giving of the minimum and maximum number of vehicles and trips would satisfy the requirement of giving particulars and of giving the necessary information to the objectors to oppose the scheme even with respect to the adequacy of the services proposed to be rendered.