# KHAZAN SINGH ETC. ETC v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS - **Citation:** [1974] 2 S.C.R. 562 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1973-12-03 - **Bench:** A. N. Ray, H. R. Khanna, K. K. Mathew, A. Alagirjswami, P. N. !Bhagwatj - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/khazan-singh-etc-etc-v-state-of-u-p-ors-6169 - **Pages:** 10 ## Headnote Constitution of lrldfa, lit •tor Vellic/es Act, s. 68~No.tio11alisation of l11Ur· Stat~ blJS. routes-Whether State Government could approve the Scheme-Whether approval of a scire me amounts to lcgfslatiorz-Art. 298-Wilet/ier em·isages the carrying 011 of trade and busilrtss withh1 any territorialllmlt ony. 8 In accordance with a reci~ arranaement arrived at between the Governments of U.P. and Rajasthan certam bus routes between these two States had been nationa· Iised .. Under the proposed scheme, approved under s. 680 or the Motor Vehicles C Act, 1939 (4 or 1939) which was duly approved by the Central Government under the proviso to sub-s. 3 of s. 680, no person other than the State Transport Under· t~kin1 was pennitted to provide any road transport services on the routes or portions thereof and permits which had already been granted to private operators were cancelled. The High Court held that the impugned schemes and notifications were valid in law. In appeal to this Court it was contended (i) that a State Government cannot approve a scheme for inter-State route under s. 680 of the Act as the power of the D State Government can only operate within its own territory; (ii) that as a State Government cannot make law for areas outside its territorial limits, tho schrme approved by it in respect of inter-State routes is unconstitutional and (iii) that in npprovlng a scheme a State Government exercises executive power which cannot operate in areas beyond the territorial limits of the State. Dismissing the appeals, HELD : The contention runs counter to the plain language of the proviso to sub· s. (3) of s. 680. In the face of the proviso it is difficult to hold that the U.P. Government was not competent to approve and publish tlleim PU$!1ed scheme. The proviso mainfestly contem{'lates that the State Government can, m accordance with the procedure laid down m Ch. IVA of the Act, approve a scheme relating to an inter-State route and publish the same. In the instant case the previous approval of the Central Government was admittedly obtained in respect of the two different States. (568B-E] , (b) lfthe approvalofthe State Government was to be accorded in respect of that portion of inter-St:1tc route which was within is own territory. there would have been no necessity to obtain the prior approval of the Central Government. The necessity of obtaining prior approval of the Central Government arises because the scheme envisages nationalisation of transport service not only for that part of the inter-State which is within the territorial limits of the State Government approving the scheme but also for the remaining part of the route which is outside the said territorial limits. ·Inter-State route would normallY cover the entire route and not merely the portion of the route which is within the territorial limits of the State Government which accords approval. f568G-H] (ii) The State Government in approving a scheme docs not legislate in the sense the legislature of a State makes law under art. 245 of the constitution for the wbole or any part of the State. The limitation on the power of a State Legislature to make laws for the whole or any part of the State and not for areas outside the t"rritorial limits of the State cannot be invoked for the purpose of pla.c.ing a restriction on the power conferred upon the State Government by Parliamentary JegisJ::ltion to approve a scheme relatin& to an inter-stat~ route. [569 C-D) (iii) The executive power of the Union and each State under Art. 298 of the CoDStitution extends to the carryina on of any trade or business. There is nothinJ in art. 298 to ·show that the trade or business carried on by a State n !1st E F G H B c [ ? f t ' I , I I[ rJfAl,AN SIKG!l V, U.P. STATE (Khanna,].) 563 • 'ctcd tO the area with!n its temtorial _limits. The article Cll\'' tc r~tn on of tmdc and busmess by a State "'!bout any tenitoriallirnit ~ces the c:>t~Ylllllapproved by the St~te Government under sub-s. (3) of s. ## Text 562 KHAZAN SINGH ETC. ETC. Y. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. December 3, 1973 (A. N. RAY, C. J., H. R. KHANNA, K. K. MATHEW, A. ALAGIRJSWAMI AND P. N. !BHAGWATJ, JJ.] Constitution of lrldfa, lit •tor Vellic/es Act, s. 68~No.tio11alisation of l11Ur· Stat~ blJS. routes-Whether State Government could approve the Scheme-Whether approval of a scire me amounts to lcgfslatiorz-Art. 298-Wilet/ier em·isages the carrying 011 of trade and busilrtss withh1 any territorialllmlt ony. 8 In accordance with a reci~ arranaement arrived at between the Governments of U.P. and Rajasthan certam bus routes between these two States had been nationa· Iised .. Under the proposed scheme, approved under s. 680 or the Motor Vehicles C Act, 1939 (4 or 1939) which was duly approved by the Central Government under the proviso to sub-s. 3 of s. 680, no person other than the State Transport Under· t~kin1 was pennitted to provide any road transport services on the routes or portions thereof and permits which had already been granted to private operators were cancelled. The High Court held that the impugned schemes and notifications were valid in law. In appeal to this Court it was contended (i) that a State Government cannot approve a scheme for inter-State route under s. 680 of the Act as the power of the D State Government can only operate within its own territory; (ii) that as a State Government cannot make law for areas outside its territorial limits, tho schrme approved by it in respect of inter-State routes is unconstitutional and (iii) that in npprovlng a scheme a State Government exercises executive power which cannot operate in areas beyond the territorial limits of the State. Dismissing the appeals, HELD : The contention runs counter to the plain language of the proviso to sub· s. (3) of s. 680. In the face of the proviso it is difficult to hold that the U.P. Government was not competent to approve and publish tlleim PU$!1ed scheme. The proviso mainfestly contem{'lates that the State Government can, m accordance with the procedure laid down m Ch. IVA of the Act, approve a scheme relating to an inter-State route and publish the same. In the instant case the previous approval of the Central Government was admittedly obtained in respect of the two different States. (568B-E] , (b) lfthe approvalofthe State Government was to be accorded in respect of that portion of inter-St:1tc route which was within is own territory. there would have been no necessity to obtain the prior approval of the Central Government. The necessity of obtaining prior approval of the Central Government arises because the scheme envisages nationalisation of transport service not only for that part of the inter-State which is within the territorial limits of the State Government approving the scheme but also for the remaining part of the route which is outside the said territorial limits. ·Inter-State route would normallY cover the entire route and not merely the portion of the route which is within the territorial limits of the State Government which accords approval. f568G-H] (ii) The State Government in approving a scheme docs not legislate in the sense the legislature of a State makes law under art. 245 of the constitution for the wbole or any part of the State. The limitation on the power of a State Legislature to make laws for the whole or any part of the State and not for areas outside the t"rritorial limits of the State cannot be invoked for the purpose of pla.c.ing a restriction on the power conferred upon the State Government by Parliamentary JegisJ::ltion to approve a scheme relatin& to an inter-stat~ route. [569 C-D) (iii) The executive power of the Union and each State under Art. 298 of the CoDStitution extends to the carryina on of any trade or business. There is nothinJ in art. 298 to ·show that the trade or business carried on by a State n !1st E F G H B c [ ? f t ' I , I I[ rJfAl,AN SIKG!l V, U.P. STATE (Khanna,].) 563 • 'ctcd tO the area with!n its temtorial _limits. The article Cll\'' tc r~tn on of tmdc and busmess by a State "'!bout any tenitoriallirnit ~ces the c:>t~Ylllllapproved by the St~te Government under sub-s. (3) of s. 680 elf~ •ons. A "~of State monopoly 10 the matter of transport service. Such a sch.:;:,tcs tlfe ob;« incl~ding those who had been granted permits by Regional Tr:lilsport Authori· t1es of Rajasthan were excluded from those routes has been called in question in civil appeals No. 1737-1745 of 1972 and _civil appc~Js No. 1870 and 1871 of 1972 which have been filed on certificate aga1nst the common judgment of the Allahabad High Court. This judgment would dispose of all the appeals. It would t>e necessary to reproduce only the facts of tlte case giving rise to civil_appe~l No. 1738, for the counsel for the parties aro agreed that the decision tn th~t appeal ~Yould ai>O govern the other appeals as the quest1on of law mvolvcd m llll these appeals is identical. · On June 14, 1960 a letter was sent by the Deputy Secretary to the Golcrnllltnt of Rajasthan to the Secretary to the Government of Uuar Prad~sh in reply to an earlier letter received from the Tra.ns· JlOn Commission Uttar Pradesh conveying approval of the ~aps· lhoin Government for the nationalisatiou of the undermentto.ned r~uf: for the operation of services by the State transport undcrtak~~~ 0 1 beth States m accordance with the reciprocal arrangement !lm\ ~ tween the two States: l. Bharatpur-Agra 2· Dharatpur-Mathura ... _""' 5 64 SUPR!Ml! COURT REPORTS [1974] 2 S.C.R. 3. Alwar-Mathura 4. Mathura-Kama Kosi via Goverdhan 5. Agra-Dholpur We are in the present appeals concerned with four of the routes, i.e. the routes mentioned above other than Bharatpur-Mathura route. Appeal No. 1738 of 1972 rclates to Dholpur-Agra route. It may be mentioned that Dholpur, Bharatpur, Alwar and Kama Kosi are si~uat ed in Rajasthan, while Agra and Mathura are situat· ed in Uttar Pradesh. Notification dated December 4, 1961 was published in the U.P. Gazette dated December 9, 1961 by the Uttar Pradesh Government under section 68C of the Act in respect of proposed scheme for providing State road transport passenger services on inter-State Agra-Dholpur route. According to the propose scheme, no persons other than the State transport undertaking would be permitted to provide any road transport services on the route or portions thereof. The scheme also visualised the cancellation of the permits which had been granted to the private operators, including the appellants. Objections were invited with regard to the proposed scheme from persons affected by the scheme. No objections were, however, filed against the aforesaid scheme and the same was approved under section 68D(2) of the Act by the Joint. Judicial Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, who was the hearing authority, as per <>rder dated July 30, 1962. The Central Government conveyed its approval to the scheme under the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 68D of the Act as per letter dated February 6, 1963. Notification dated February 20, 1963 was published by the Uttar Pradesh Government in the official Gazette dated March 16, 1963 for the publication of the approved scheme under sub-section (3) of section 68D of the Act. Clauses 1, 2, 4 and 8 of the scheme read as under: "1. The State Road Transport passenger services shall commence to operate from April 1, 1963 or thereafter. 2. State Road Transport passenger services shall be provided on the Inter-State route Agra Dholpur of Agra Region. 4. No persons other than the State Transport Undertakings will be permitted to provide any Road Transport Services on this route or portions ther~f specified in Clause (2) above. 8. The number of private Transport Vehicles on the route or portion thereof specified in clause (2) above shall be reduced to nil." A B c D E F G It was also provided in the scheme that the permits of the private operators would stand cancelled. Provision was made for compensation for the premature cancellation of the permits of the private operaH r tors. No compensation was, however; to be paid when a permit for an alternative route or area in lieu thereof was offered by the Regional ·Transport Authority and accepted by the holder of the permit. By A B c D E G H KHA7;.\N SlNOH v. U.P. STATB (KhanM, 1.) 565 notification dated April 9, 1963 the permits in favour of the private operators, including the appellants, issued· by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur and countersigned by the Reaional .Transport Authortiy, Agra were cancelled under sub-section (2) of section 68F of the Act. The appellants, who are bus operators of Rajasthan. and some others thereupon filed petitions under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to challenae the validity of the above notifications. The learned siDjle Judae who heard the writ petitions came to the c:onclulion that a State could not by takina unilateral action previae tran~port tervicea for a territory outtide the limits of ita own territory. The learned Judp wa1 of the vlew that in framlna the scheme the State tra111port undertaklna performed executive function of the State. View waa expretled that one State could not cancel permit• held by the bua operators of another State. Findina was also aiven that effective notice had not been siven to the bus operators of Rajasthan as the noti1l.cations were published in the Gazette of Uttar Pradesh only. The writ petitions were accordingly allowed and the impu,aned notifications were quashed by the.learned single Judge. On appeal the Division Bench of the Hiih Court held that when an undertakina proposes a scheme and the same is approved by the State Government, the undcrtakina and the State Government really perform the functions of the Central Government under clause (2) of article 2SB of the Conatitution. Reaardina the cancellation of the ptr· mits, the Divltion Bench obmved : "The But_Operatora of t1ttar Pradeah held permit• a.ranted. by the Transport authorities of Uttar Pradesh. They could, however, not leaally ply their vehicle• on hire in Rajaathan be~ond the lilriita of Uttar Pradeah with· out ftrat havina the1r permits c:ounteralaned by tho traruport authoritiea of Rajaathan. What really hap~ened was that when the Schemes were finalised, thepermi1s ofthe operators of Uttar Pradesh were cancelled by the transport authoritie• of Uttar Pradesh and the c:ounter-sisnatutes made by. the Transport authorities of Rajasthan were cancelled by those transport authorities. Similarly, the permits held by those operators of Rajasthan were cancelled by the Transport authorities of Rajasthan and the counter-signatures on those permits made by the transport authorities of Uttar Pradesh were cancelled by these transport authorities. We, therefore, find no substance in this argument advanced on behalf of the respondents." The High Court repelled the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants that they had no knowledge of the proposed schemes. It was observed that the relevant pro\'isions for publtcation of the schemes were complied with and that notices were put up on the notice boards of the State transport authorities of Uttar Pradesh as well as of Rajasthan. The DiviSJon Bench accordingly allowed the appeals filed by 566 SUPREME COUJt.T Jli!PORTS [1974J 2 s.e& the State and held that the impugned schemes and notifications were valid in law. The Division Bench while allowing the appeals observed: "In consequence, we allow these appeals, set aside the order oft he learned Single Judge and hold that the impugned Schemes and notifications are valid in law. The learned Single Judge has said in his judgment that individual peti· tions had raised some additional and separate grounds for questioning their exclusion from certain routes. He, however, felt that it was not necessary to consider individual cases of petitioners as all the writ petitions could be decided on .general grounds common to all the petitions emerg\ng from admitted facts. The individual grounds must now be considered by the learned Single Judge. He, however, is no longer available in this Court and the papers of these cases will be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for nominating a Bench." the correctness of the view taken by the Division Bench has been assailed in these appeals. Before dealing with the contentions ad.· vanced, we may refer to the relevant l)rovisions of the Act as they existed at the relevant time. Chapter IVA was inserted in the Act by the Motor Vehicles (Am.ndment) Act, 1956 (Act 100 of 1956). The said chapter came into force with effect from February 16, 1957 and consisted at the relevant time of sections 6BA to 68 I.· Section 68A contains definitions. According to clause (b) of that section, "State transport undertaking" means any undertaking providing road transport service, where such undertaking is carried on by,-(i) the Central Government or a State Government; (ii) any Road Transport Corporation established under section 3 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950; (iii) the Delhi Road Transport Authority established under section 3 of the Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950; (iv) any municipality or any corporation or company owned or controlled by the State Government. Section 68B provides that the provi~ions of Chapter IVA and the rules and orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter IV of this Act or in any other law for the time · being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. Se:;tions 68C nnd 680 at the relevant time read as under : "68C. Where any State transport undertaking is of opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, ade- ~uate, economical and properly co-ordinated 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 or route pro~ posed to be covered and such other particulars respectina theretC? as may be prescribed, and shall cause every such scheme to be t:ublished in the Official Gazette and also in A B c D E F G H A B c D E F G H 1CH~N SINGH v, U.P. STATE. (Khanna, /.) such other manner as the State Government may direct. 680. ( 1) Any person affected by the scheme publislled under section 68C may, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the schetne in the Official Gazette, file objections thereto before the State Government. (2) Tbe State Government may, after considering the objections and after giving an opportunity to the objector or his representatives and the representatives of the State transport undertaking to be heard in the matter, if they so desire, approve or modify the scheme. (3) The Scheme as approved or modified under sub· section (2) shall then be published in the Official Gazette by the State Government and the same shall thereupon become final and shall be called the approved scheme and the area or route to which it relates shall be caUed the notified area or notified route: Provided that no such scheme which rleates to any inter-State route shall be deemed to be an approved scheme unless it has been published in the Official Gazette with the previous approval of ~he Central Government." !167 Chapter IVA incorporates special provisions relating to State transport undertakings. The provisions of this chapter and the rules and orders made thereunder have in view of section 68B an overridi11g. effect and would prevail even though they are inconsistent with any· thing contained in Chapter IV of the Act or any other taw for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by vitture ofany law. Section 68C enables a State transport undertaking, as defined in section 68A of the Act, to prepare a scheme for nationalisation Gf transport service, with the particulars mentioned in the section, in case the State transport undertaking is of the opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public ill· tcrest that road transport services in general or in any particular class of such service should be run and operated by the State transport undertaking to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise .. It is also provided that such a scheme shall be published in the Ofllcial Gazette and also in such other manner as may· be directed by the State Government. S~ction 680 enables the persons nffected by the scheme to file objections within thirty days from the date of the publication of the proposed scheme in the Official Gazette before the State Government. The State Government has thereafter to consider the objections after giving an opportunity to the objector or his representatives and the representatives of the State transport undertaking to be heard in the matter. Power is given to ·the State Government to either approve the scheme or modify the same. The scheme as approved or modified is then published in the Official Gazette by the State Government and thereupon the scheme become' finat The approved scheme then operates for the area or the route to !68 SUPll!M! COURT llEPOJlTS [1974] 2 s.c.ll. which it relates. It is also provided that if a scheme relates to an inter· State route, the same shall not be deemed to be an approved scheme A unless it has been published in the Official Gazette with the previous approval of the Central Government. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that a State Govern· ment cannot approve a scheme for inter·State route under sectio11 680 of the Act as the powers of the State Government can operate within its own territory and cannot operate in an area beyond the B territorial limits of the State. This contention, in our opinion, can· not be accepted aa it runs counter to the plain tanauaac of the proviso to sub.section (2) ohection 680 of the Act. Accorclina to the pro· viso, no scheme which relatel to an Inter-State route shall be deemed to be an approved 1chr:me unlw it haa· been publilhed in the OfBclal Gazette with the previous aJ)l)roval of the Central Government. The provi10 manife1tly contemplate. that the State Government can in C accordance with the procedure laid down in Chapter IVA or the Act approve a scheme relatina to an inter·State route and publish the same. The only limitation on the power of the State Government in this respect is that it should before publishing the scheme obtain the prior approval of the Central Government. Such previous approval Jf the Central Government was admittedly obtained in respect of the inter-State route with which we D are concerned, as per letter dated February 19, 1963. An inter-State route is one of which one of the termini falls in one State and the other in another State. Aira-Dholpur route is ad· mitted an inter-State route a1 the termini of the route are situated in two different Statel. In the face of the proviso to sub-section (3) of !lection 680 of the Act, we find it difficult to accede to the sub· mission that the Uttar Prade1b Government was not competent to E approve and publish the impuaned scheme relatinJ to Aara .... Dhol· pur route. There is no force in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that approval of the State Government for a scheme relat• ina to an inter-State route can only be in respect or that portion of the route which is within its own territory and not in respect of the F entire inter-State route. If the approval of the State Government was to be accorded in respect of that portion of inter-State route which was within its own territory, there would have been no necessity to obtain the prior approval of the Central Government, A State Government is competent to approve a scheme for nationalisation of tra.nsport service on a route within its own territory if it complies with the other necessary formalities prescribed by law. There is in G such an event no necessity to obtain any approval of the Central Government. The necessity of obtainins prior approval of the Central Government arises because the scheme envisages nationalisation of transport service not only for that part of the inter·State route which is within the territorial limits or the State Government approvinJ th~ scheme but also for the remaining part of the route which is outside H the said territorjallimits. Inter-State route would normally cover the entire route and not merely the portion of the route which is within the . territorial limits of the State .Government' whic~ accords approval. A B c }l D E F G H KHA~N SINGH V,U,P, STATE (Khanna, J.) 569 It has then been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that when a State Government approves a scheme, it makes law and &S a State Government cannot mak~ law for areas outside its terri· torial limits, the scheme approved by the State Government in res· pect of an inter-State route is unconstitutional. This argument, in our opinion, is fallacious and untenable. A scheme approved by a State Government is undoubtedly law as defined in clause (3) of article 13 of the Constitution, according to which unless the context otherwise requires, "law" includes any Otdinance, order, bye-law, rule, reaula· tion, notification, custom or usage havin" in the territory of India the force oflaw. The above definition of ''law' is for the p11rpose of article 13 in the context of laws violative of fundamental riahts contained in Part III of the Constitution. The State Government in approvina a scheme does not leaislate In the sen~ the lealslature of a State makes law under article 245 of the Conlhtutlon for the whole or any part of the State. The limitation on the power of a State uaislature to make laws for the whole or any part of the State and not for areas outside the territorial limits of the State cannot be invoked for the purpose of placing a restriction on the power confined upon the State Government by Parliamentary legislation to approve a scheme relating to an inter-State ro~1te. Contention has also been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that the State Government in approvina a scheme exercises executive power. Such executive power, accordina to the contention, cannot operate in areas beyond the teritorial limits of the State. In tbis connection, we find that the Motor Vehicles- Act was etl.ltcted by the Central Lealslature. Chapter IVA of the Act containina the·aec· tlons with which we are concerned was inserted in the Act by the Union Parliament. The State Gover1'lmet1t in approvina a scheme 111 re&pect of an inter-State rol.lte under sub-section (3) of section 680 of the Act exercisu a ~tatutory power ,which has been vested in it O) a law made by the Parhament. The satd law related to the creatiot\ of a State monopoly in the matter of transport service. The executive power of the Union and each State . under article 298 of the Constitutiotl extends, inter alia, to the carrymg on of any trade or business. There is nothing in article 298 to show that the trade or business carried on by a State must be restricted to the area within its terri· torial limits. On the contrary, the ~rticle envisages the carrying on of the trade and business by a State Without any territorial limitations. The only restriction on the executive .Power of the State in this respect is contained in clause (b ) of the provtso to that article:. According to that clause, the executive power of the State shall, in so far as such trade or business is not one with rest:ect to which the State uaislature may make laws, be subject to legislation by Parliament. Entry 35 ill List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution relates to mechi· cil.lly propelled vehicles including the principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied. Under entry 21 in List III of the Seventh Schedule, the Parliament ~an make law~ for co~merci,al and industrial monopolies. The expresston "commerctal and mdustrtal monopolies''. 570 SU P!EME COURT REPORTS (197~] 2 S.C.R, as held by this Court in the case of H.C. Narayanappa and Ors. v. The State of Mysore and Ors. (1) is wide enough to include grant or creation of commercial or industrial monopolies to the State and citizens as well as control of monopolies. Dealing with the question of State monopoly in the matter of transport service as envisaged by Chapter. IVA of the Act, Shah J, speaking for the Court observed in the above mentioned case : "The amplitude of the powers under the entry in the concurrent list expressly dealing with commercial and industrial monopolies cannot be presumed to be restricted by the generality of the expression 'trade and commerce' in the State list. If the argument of the petitioners and the in· tervener that legislation relating to monopoly in respect of trade and industry is within the exlusive competence of the State be accepted, the Union Parliament cannot legislate to create monopolies in the Union Government in respect of any commercial or trading venture even tb.ough power to carry on any trade or business under a monopoly is reserved to the Union by the combined operation of Art. 298, and the law which is protected from the attack that it infringes the fundamental freedom to carry on business by Art. 19(6). We are therefore of the view that Chapter IV A could competently be enacted by the Parliament under entry No. 21 read with entry No. 35 of the Concurrent List". A scheme approved by the State Government under sub-section (3) of section 68D of the Act efiectuates the object of State monopoly in the matter of transport service. Such a scheme, in our opinion, does not entail encroachment by one State Government upon the: executive sphere of another State Government. Tb.e action taken by the Uttar Pra~esh Government in furtherance of the objective of a State monopoly in accordance with the statute made by Parliament cannot, in our opinion, be struck down on the ground of e11croach· ·ment upon the executive power of the Rajasthan Government. In any case, there is no question of encroachment upon the executive domain or the State of Rajasthan in the present case as the whole thing is beina done by the Ut'tar Pradesh Governm~tnt with the concurrence of the Government of Rajasthan and the two Governments arc actini in concert. In view of the above, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the validity of the action of the Uttar Pradesh Government in according approval to the scheme can be sustained under clause (2) of article 258 of the Constitution. The appellants have not challenged the consitutional validity of the · proviso tr;> sub-section (3) of section 680 of the Act. It has, however, been ursed on their behalf tb.at the proviso should be construed in such a manner so as not to contravene the articles of the Constitution. In our opinion, the construction which we have placed upon the afore· said proviso entails no contravention of the articles of the Consti~ tution. U> {U61h a s.c.ll 742. A, B c D E p H A B c D r IGIAZA.N SINGH V •. V.P. STATE (Khanna, 1.) 571 We may not deal with some of the cases which have been cited on behalf of the aJ)'PCllants. The case of King Emperor v. Sibnath Banerjl and Ors, (l) related to the validity of Rule 26 of the Defence of India Rules framed under the Defence of India Act, 1939. The Rule was held to be valid. It was also held that it was not necessary for the Governor to be personally satisfied before an order under the above Rule could be made. Dealing with the term "executi\·e", the Judicial Committee held that it includes both a decision as to action and tho carrying out of such a decision. Their Lordships further expressed disagreement with the view which sought narrow reading of sections 49(2) and 124(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The case of In re The Delhi Laws Act, 1912 (2) related to the delegation of legislative power and the difference ~etwecn deleption of legislative power and conditional legislation. Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Ors. v. A.udhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. (3) dealt with the procedure to be followed for nationalising transport service. None of the above cited cases, in our opinion, are of any real assistance to the appellants because the guestion involved in these appeals is materially different. There is no force in these appeals. The same are accordingly dismissed with costs. One hearing fee. · P. B. R. Appeal dismissed. (1) 7Z J.A. 2-41. . (3) U959l 1 Sa.pp. S.C.k. 319. (l) [1951) S.C,R.. 747.