# [1975] 2 S.C.R. 37

- **Citation:** [1975] 2 S.C.R. 37
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-09-10
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 1119-1122 ' of 1973
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, C.J. K. K. Mathew, V. R. KRrsHNA IYER
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1975-2-s-c-r-37-6312
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act
(4 of 1939) ss. 68C and 68D-l111er-State routePublication of Scheme by State Transport Undertaking in official gazetteWheth.er should be in the gazettes of all States concerned.
·
·
Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, enables State Transport Undertakings to prepare schemes excluding totally or partially, private operators from
bus routes. It provides for the publication of the prepared scheme and cognate
particulars in the official Gazette and in such other manner as the State Government may direct. Sertion 680 provides for hearing of the viewpoints of categories.
of. entities enumerated in the section. ·
·The State Transport Undertaking of U.P. contemplated framing of a scheme
excluding private operators from the route Agra (in U.P.) to Bharatpur (in
Rajasthan). The scheme was pub!ished in the official gazette of the State of
U.P., but was not published in the gazette of Rajasthan. Some private operators,
other than the appellants, raised objections but the scheme· was approved. The
appellants challenged the scheme on the ground that the non-publication of the
schem.e in the Raja11than Gazette was a contravention of the vital forrnallty in
s. 68C. The }!:igh Court dismissed the petition.
Disniissi'ng the appeal to this Court,
HELD : ( 1) Se:tion 68C relates to both intra-state and inter-state schemes.
The wholesome intendment of ss. 68C and 680 could be fulfilled if schemes
relating to inter-state routes are published in all the States concerned. But, a
perusal of s. 68C shows that it speaks of the State Government, . the ·Official
gazette and the State Transport Undertaking, even though, inter-state schemes
also come within the compass of the provision. Therefore. the section merely
requires publication in the concerned official gazette of the State whose undertaking initiates the project for nationaJisation. The fa:t that for statutory construction the singular includes the plural, does ROI make it . compulso1 y to read
the plural wherever the singular is mentioned. The expression 'in the official
gazette, and the publication required therein, does not undergo a change in its
semantics when the route concerned is an inter-state as against an intra-state
one. [40D, G-4.!Al
(2) The High Court was right in rejecting the contention that authorities in
the State of U.P. could not validly cancel permits held by bus operators of
Re}asthan.
[ 41 C-D]
·
G

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
37
BH,'.\RATPUR MOTOR WORKERS·COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
LTD. ETC.
1'.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
September 10, 1974
[A. N. RAY, C.J. K. K. MATHEW AND V. R. KRrsHNA IYER, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act
(4 of 1939) ss. 68C and 68D-l111er-State routePublication of Scheme by State Transport Undertaking in official gazetteWheth.er should be in the gazettes of all States concerned.
·
·
Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, enables State Transport Undertakings to prepare schemes excluding totally or partially, private operators from
bus routes. It provides for the publication of the prepared scheme and cognate
particulars in the official Gazette and in such other manner as the State Government may direct. Sertion 680 provides for hearing of the viewpoints of categories.
of. entities enumerated in the section. ·
·The State Transport Undertaking of U.P. contemplated framing of a scheme
excluding private operators from the route Agra (in U.P.) to Bharatpur (in
Rajasthan). The scheme was pub!ished in the official gazette of the State of
U.P., but was not published in the gazette of Rajasthan. Some private operators,
other than the appellants, raised objections but the scheme· was approved. The
appellants challenged the scheme on the ground that the non-publication of the
schem.e in the Raja11than Gazette was a contravention of the vital forrnallty in
s. 68C. The }!:igh Court dismissed the petition.
Disniissi'ng the appeal to this Court,
HELD : ( 1) Se:tion 68C relates to both intra-state and inter-state schemes.
The wholesome intendment of ss. 68C and 680 could be fulfilled if schemes
relating to inter-state routes are published in all the States concerned. But, a
perusal of s. 68C shows that it speaks of the State Government, . the ·Official
gazette and the State Transport Undertaking, even though, inter-state schemes
also come within the compass of the provision. Therefore. the section merely
requires publication in the concerned official gazette of the State whose undertaking initiates the project for nationaJisation. The fa:t that for statutory construction the singular includes the plural, does ROI make it . compulso1 y to read
the plural wherever the singular is mentioned. The expression 'in the official
gazette, and the publication required therein, does not undergo a change in its
semantics when the route concerned is an inter-state as against an intra-state
one. [40D, G-4.!Al
(2) The High Court was right in rejecting the contention that authorities in
the State of U.P. could not validly cancel permits held by bus operators of
Re}asthan.
[ 41 C-D]
·
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1119-1122
' of 1973 and 816 to 835 of 1974. ·
·
H
From the judgment and order dated the 9th December, 1971 of
the Allahabad High Court in Sp!, Appeals Nos. 658, 664, 674 and
· 678/1968, and 653-657, 659_;._660, 663, 667,
669-673,
677,
678-680 and 685-686/1968 respectively.
M. N. Phadke, (In C. A. No. 1119/73), D. Sen (In C. A. Nos.
1120-1122/73) and D. N. Mishr~, for the appellants (In C. As. Nos.
1119-1122173).
38
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[197512 s.c.R.
B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellants (In C. As. Nos. 816-835/
74).
0. P. Ran.a, for the respondents (In all the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J.-Tbese appeals stem out of a !itigation which
germinated from a certain nationalisation scheme contemplated in
Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act ·IV of 1939)
(hereinafter called the Act).
·
More than a decade ago, the State Transport Undertaking of Uttar
Pradesh (hereinafter reforred to as the Undertaking, for short) took
steps for framing four schemes for four routes :and proceeded to publish the necessary notifications in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette, copies
whereof were sent to Rajasthan for being pasted on the notice boards
of the Transport Authorities in that State.
A statutory enquiry, envisaged in Chaper JV A, followed.
Some operators-qot. the appellants-raised objections and, eventually, the schemes were approved.
Of course these schemes related to inter-State routes and had received ·
the concurrence of the State of Rajasthan.
Although the Act contemplates the framini: of schemes for nationalisation for the obvious
benefit of the travellmg public by provision of an efficient, adequate,
economical and properly coordinated road
transport service
and
affords statutory opportunity for raising objections and making representations, n.ot merely to the affected operators but also to other
entities like associations representing persons interested in the prcr·
. vision of road transport facilities, local authorities, police authorties
etc., in the present case only private operators have raised their voice
against the proposed schemes. While it may look a little odd for such
.operators to plead in. Court .that public bodies and passengers' associations in Rajasthan have been denied opportunities of making effective
representation, that does not detract from the obligation of this Court
to consider whether' obligatory procedural requisites prescribi<.d by
the statute have been adhere& to in the process of nationalising the
inter-State route concerned.
As already indicated., these appeals relate to the validity of
a
scheme of nationalisation of an inter-State route stretching
across
Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. The identical scheme was challenged,
without success, on certain constitutional grounds by a number
of
operators and this Court negatived those contentions in its decision
reported as Khazan Singh v. State of U.P. ( 1). A few grounds, not
urged before this Court in the earlier round, however, survive for our
.consideration.
As was rightly pointed out by Mr. Phadke, learned
counsel for some of the. app1~1lants and also by Mr. B. Sen, appearing
for the others, the earlier decision was rendered in appeals pursuant
to certificates granted under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution. Necessarily they were confined to constitutional issues. The present points
do not savour of constitutional invalidity, but of illegality for nonconformity with statutory mandates.
Although the grounds raised in
(l) A. Y. R. 1974 S. C. 669.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BHARATPUR MOTOR WORKERS SOCIETY V. U. P. STATE
39
(Krishna Iyer, /.)
th~ m~moranda of appeals, supplemented by additional grounds, are
qmte J?~pulous, counsel for the appellants have planned down their
propos1t1ons to but two or three and we propose to deal with them
only. Other contentions faintly referred to in the course of arguments
do not appeal to us and merit no mention.
The facts pertaining to the questions we propose to deal with lend
themselves to a brief statement.
The Undertaking contemplated
framing of a scheme excluding private operators from the route Agra
(in U.P.) to Bharatpur (in Rajasthan). Admittedly, the scheme,
which was published in the official gazette of the State of U.P. on
J?.ecember 9, 1961 was not published in the Gazette of Rajasthan.
Section 68C enabl.es State Transport Undertakings to prepare schemes
totally or partially excluding private operators from bus routes. Tht
Act also provides for hearing, under s. 68D, of the viewpoints
of
categories of concerned entities enumerated in the section. Of course
no worthwhile objections or constructive suggestions can be made
regarding a scheme unless there is knowledge about the partict!lars of
the scheme. For this reason s. 68C provides for the proposed scheme
and cognate particulars to be published 'in the Official Gazette and
also in such other manner as the State Government may direct'. Rules
have been framed and our attention has been drawn to Rule 4 which
provides that schemes framed under s. 68C of the Act shall be published in form I appended to the Rules. The Transport Commissioner
is obligated to get a copy of the scheme pasted on the notice board
of the office of the State Transport Authonty and another at the office
of the Regional Transport Authority concerned.
It was suggested that the Rules had not been complied with but,
in the light of the categorical statement ip the judgment under appeal
to the contrary, there 'is no merit in this argument. The High Court
has stated :
"It is not disputed that this Rule (Rule 4) was complied with. The notices were put up on the notice board of
the State Transport Authorities of Uttar Pradesh and also
of Rajasthan."
There is thus no non-compliance with rules regarding publication of
the scheme.
As mentioned by the Hi~ Ct;m~t •. the bus ?Perators wh!> claim to
be aggrieved by the non-pubhcatlon m the Rai~sthan Offic1aJ Ga~ette
were otherwise very probably aware of the details .o~ the sche.me s1~ce ·
they were plying their buses between the two termm1 located m Raiasthan and Uttar Pradesh. Even so, Jet us examine whether t~ere has
been any contravention of the vital formality in s. 68C re~ardmg p~b
lication in the Official Gazette.
The point was taken m the High
Court, but was disposed of in the following manner :
"As regards the question of adequacy or other~ise of
notice to the respondents, sections 68C and 68D proVIde for
40
SUPREME COURT 'REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
publication in the official gazette of the :State. This provision was complied with and the notifications were published
· in the official gazette of the State of Uttar Pradesh."
A close look at the fasc:iculus of sections dealing with State Transpon
A
Undertakings and Schemes framed by them makes it plain that publi·
B
cation of particulars of a scheme has a purpose. Counsel for the
· appellants urged that this purpose would be baulked if in the case of
an inter-State route the scheme were published only in the Official ·
Gazette of one State. Apparently, s. 68C has been rather simplisti•
cally drawn, unmindful of its sweep in relation to inter-State routes.
There is no doubt that if local bodies, police authorities, passengers'
associations, private operators and even potential operators were to · C
make effective representations regarding the four-fold requirements of
efficiency, adequacy, economy, and coordination in regard· to the
Undertaking's proposed scheme, they niust know the pertinent details.
We assume that these particulars come to the cognisance of persons
once they appear in th!) Official Gazette and it is fair that such publi•
cation is made in every State covered by the. inter-State route. . In
short, the wholesome intendment of ss. 68C and 68D would be fulD
filled if schemes relating to inter-State routes a.re published in all the
States concerned.
In the present case, Rule 4 goes a long way in
achieving this object and it has been complied with.
The question
is whether the failure to publish in the Official Gazette Of Rajasthan,
is a fatal flaw.
·
.
There is no doubt, as has been .pointed out by the High Court, that
the operators who are contesting the scheme before us could not have
been in ignorance of the anatomy of the scheme impugned. Even s~,
let us examine the legal merit of the plea on the assumption that nonpublication in 'the . Official Gazette' is lethal in legal consequence.
Section 68C, in the ordinary course, relates to intra-State schemes,
but may also cover inter-State routes.
An undertaking of one. State
.or the other may make a proposal for nationalisation extending beyond its frontiers.
There are certain safeguards built into s. 68D
such as the previous approval Of the Central Government having to .
be obtained. Be that as it may, construed strictly, s. 68C insists on
publication of the particulars relating to a scheme-intra-State or
inter-State-in 'the Official Gazette'. The base State or the undertaking which launches the proposed nationalisation alone falls within
the ambit of the provision. It is clear from a perusal of s. 68C that it
speaks of the State Government, the Official Gazette and the State
Transport Undertaking, even though it is quite clear that inter-State
schemes also come within the compass of the provision. Whatever the
reason-it is not for us to ask why-the section, as it reads, merely
requires publication in the concerned Official Gazette of the State
whose undertaking initiates the project for nationalisation. The fact
that for statutory construction the singular includes the plural, does
not compel us to read the plural wherever the singular is mentioned.
We are satisfied that the expression 'in the Official Gazette' and the
E
'
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
BHARATPUR l\IOTOR WORKERS SOCIETY V, U. P. STATE
4 !
(Krishna Tyer, J.)
publication required thete(n, does not undergo a chance in its semantics when the route concerned is an inter-State as against an intraState one.
In the present case it was the U.P. Undertaking which
proposed the scheme for nationalisation and the U.P. Gazette has
carried the publication. The law asks for no more. The kgal objection has therefore to be over-ruled.
It has been stated at the Bar that it mav be desirable for State
Transport Undertakings when they propose .schemes for nationalisation of inter-State routes to get them published in the Official Gazettes
of all the States through which the route runs. It is for the legislature
to make the necessary amendatory provision in this behalf. However,
for reasons already set out, we cannot invalidate the scheme on the
score of its non-publication in the Rajasthan Gazette.
A point was raised that the authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh could not validly cancel permits held by bus operators of Rajas--
thae. Thjs argument has engaged the attention of the Division Bench
of the High Court and has been rejected, for reasons stated, which
meet with our concurrence.
It is surprising that a nationalisation scheme, calculated to provide efficient and coordinated transport services to the commcin people
of backward areas has got bogged down on some ground or other
for over a decade. It is a notorious fact that means of public transport in the country are grossly inadequate and energetic measures to
overcome this handicap have to be undertaken if the nation is to
progress. But statutory hurdles and legal road-blocks laid ' by private operators holding up beneficient schemes conceived in public
. interest for twelve or thirteen years cannot redound to the credit of
our administrative and legal systems.
"Something is rotten in the
Stare of Denmark".
•
In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.
V.P.S.
Appeals di.rmissed.