# • SHRI ROSHANLAL GAUTAM v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1965] 1 S.C.R. 841
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1964-10-26
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 800 of 1964
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar C.J, K. N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, R.Aghubar Dayal, J. R. Mudholkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/shri-roshanlal-gautam-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-3268
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Nationalisation of Transport Services-Scheme prohibiting private
operators from specified routes-Whether affects rights of operators holding
permits ·related not to routes but to specified area-Scheme whether satisfies provisions of statute-Services provided under scheme whether adefuate-Section 68C Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as amended by Motor
Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956.
The appellant, the holder of a permit in respect of contract carriages in
the Agra region challenged a scheme framed by the Uttar Pradesh Government nationalising road transport services in the. Agra region and prohibiting private operation of the services on certain specified routes. His
writ petition before the High Court having been dismissed and Lettel'li
Patent Appeal also having failed he appealed to the Supreme Court, by
special leave.
Three contentions were advanced on behalf of the appellant : (1)
The scheme was only a reproduction of an earlier scheme under s. 3
of the U.P. Road Transport (Development) Act, 1955 which had been
struck down by the High Court. The requirements of s. 68C of the Motor
Vehicles Act were quite different from those of s. 3 of the U.P. Act, and
the scheme did not answer them. (2) Under s. 68C of the Motor Vehicles
Act the State was under an obligation to provide 'adequate' transport ser-
,;ces to replace those already in operation, but the scheme provided only
for 16 contract carriage services.
As the number of these services could
be changed under the scheme, the latter would be again open to challenge
whenever the change was effected.
(3) The scheme was not properly
framed because it provided for the operation of contract carriages on
certain routes to the exclusion of the appellant who held a permit for an
area irrespective of any route or routes.
HELD : The appeal must be dismissed.
( i) It is no doubt true that while s. 68C makes a mention of an "efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service" "in the public interest", the U.P. Act merely mentioned "the interest
of the general public" "subserving the common good or for maintaining and
developing efficient transport system".
However it would be wrong to
think that even under the U .P. Act GoYernmenl would not think of an
"adequate", "economical" or "property coordinated" road transport services
for the common good and for maintaining and developing an efficient road
transport system. The change in the language is no doubt there but the
intention underlying the words is the same, and even if the exact words of
s. 68C might not have been present before the framers ·of the scheme, it is
quite obvious that they took into account those very factors.
Indeed the
use· of the words "adequate State road 'transport contract carriage service"
in cl. (3) of the scheme reproduced the language of s. 68C and not that
of s. 3.
This suggests that the requirements of s. 68C were probably
borne in mind. [845 B-F]
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1965] I S.C.R.
(ii) The .1ichen1e \Vas rca.d as providing sixteen contract carriane!> and it
A
~}ts not constdcrcd whether 11 woulU hecomc ina<lcqu:.i1c in the fut~rc. 1846
(iii} Under the i\1~tor Vehicles Act there i.;, no douh1 a distlnctio!1
bet"'·ecn area and route in some of the sections but in others that dis1inl:tion
docs not seem 10 be preserved.
The pro,·isions of s. 51 ( 2) ( i) clearly show
tha~ t~e area ~t the commencement of the peClTlit can he cut down hy
~ot.Jf)'Jng ccrto1n routes and there seems to be no bar to doing it later
1n vie"· of the. scheme ~f nationalisa1ion.
By taking away one of the
B
routes the area lS as cffccttvcly cut do'-'"·n as when an ~1reJ is included in the
permit but rout~'i. arc indicated on v.·hi~h .alone the contract carri:iges can
ply.
The prov1s1ons of s. 688 also 1nd1catc that power is reserved to
modify the existing permits either by curtailing the area or by curtailing
dac routes.
Taking over of certain routes cxchL~ivcly for the State under·
takings renders that ponion of

## Text

A
c
D
E
F
G
H
•
SHRI ROSHANLAL GAUTAM
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
October 26, 1964
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR C.J., K. N. WANCHOO,
M. HIDAYATULLAH, R.AGHUBAR DAYAL AND
J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.)
Nationalisation of Transport Services-Scheme prohibiting private
operators from specified routes-Whether affects rights of operators holding
permits ·related not to routes but to specified area-Scheme whether satisfies provisions of statute-Services provided under scheme whether adefuate-Section 68C Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as amended by Motor
Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956.
The appellant, the holder of a permit in respect of contract carriages in
the Agra region challenged a scheme framed by the Uttar Pradesh Government nationalising road transport services in the. Agra region and prohibiting private operation of the services on certain specified routes. His
writ petition before the High Court having been dismissed and Lettel'li
Patent Appeal also having failed he appealed to the Supreme Court, by
special leave.
Three contentions were advanced on behalf of the appellant : (1)
The scheme was only a reproduction of an earlier scheme under s. 3
of the U.P. Road Transport (Development) Act, 1955 which had been
struck down by the High Court. The requirements of s. 68C of the Motor
Vehicles Act were quite different from those of s. 3 of the U.P. Act, and
the scheme did not answer them. (2) Under s. 68C of the Motor Vehicles
Act the State was under an obligation to provide 'adequate' transport ser-
,;ces to replace those already in operation, but the scheme provided only
for 16 contract carriage services.
As the number of these services could
be changed under the scheme, the latter would be again open to challenge
whenever the change was effected.
(3) The scheme was not properly
framed because it provided for the operation of contract carriages on
certain routes to the exclusion of the appellant who held a permit for an
area irrespective of any route or routes.
HELD : The appeal must be dismissed.
( i) It is no doubt true that while s. 68C makes a mention of an "efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service" "in the public interest", the U.P. Act merely mentioned "the interest
of the general public" "subserving the common good or for maintaining and
developing efficient transport system".
However it would be wrong to
think that even under the U .P. Act GoYernmenl would not think of an
"adequate", "economical" or "property coordinated" road transport services
for the common good and for maintaining and developing an efficient road
transport system. The change in the language is no doubt there but the
intention underlying the words is the same, and even if the exact words of
s. 68C might not have been present before the framers ·of the scheme, it is
quite obvious that they took into account those very factors.
Indeed the
use· of the words "adequate State road 'transport contract carriage service"
in cl. (3) of the scheme reproduced the language of s. 68C and not that
of s. 3.
This suggests that the requirements of s. 68C were probably
borne in mind. [845 B-F]
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1965] I S.C.R.
(ii) The .1ichen1e \Vas rca.d as providing sixteen contract carriane!> and it
A
~}ts not constdcrcd whether 11 woulU hecomc ina<lcqu:.i1c in the fut~rc. 1846
(iii} Under the i\1~tor Vehicles Act there i.;, no douh1 a distlnctio!1
bet"'·ecn area and route in some of the sections but in others that dis1inl:tion
docs not seem 10 be preserved.
The pro,·isions of s. 51 ( 2) ( i) clearly show
tha~ t~e area ~t the commencement of the peClTlit can he cut down hy
~ot.Jf)'Jng ccrto1n routes and there seems to be no bar to doing it later
1n vie"· of the. scheme ~f nationalisa1ion.
By taking away one of the
B
routes the area lS as cffccttvcly cut do'-'"·n as when an ~1reJ is included in the
permit but rout~'i. arc indicated on v.·hi~h .alone the contract carri:iges can
ply.
The prov1s1ons of s. 688 also 1nd1catc that power is reserved to
modify the existing permits either by curtailing the area or by curtailing
dac routes.
Taking over of certain routes cxchL~ivcly for the State under·
takings renders that ponion of the area inetrecti\'e for a private operator
such as the appellant who hol<ls the permit for the whole area including
C
those routes. [848 B-GJ
C.P.C. Motor Services, Mysore '" State of Mysort. [1962] Supp. I
S.C.R. 717, Konda/a Rao v. A. P. Stale Road Transport Corporation, A.LR.
( 1961) S.C. 82 and Dosa Satyanarayaoamlll'l)I etc. v. Andhra Pradesh State
Road Transport Corporation, [1961) l S.C.R. 642,-relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 800 of
1964.
D
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
March 30, 1964, of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal
No. 27 of 1964.
G. S. Pathak, B. L. Singha/ and 8. P. Maheshwari, for the
appellant.
C. 8. Agarwala, K. N. Singh and 0. P. Ra!lil, for the Respondents.
G. S. Pathak, A. V. Viswa111Jtha Sastri, 8. L. Singhal and
H. P. Maheshwari. for the intervener.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatullah J.
The appellant who appeals by special leave
against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated March
30, 1964 is the holder of a contract carriage permit granted to
him by the Regional Transport Authority, Agra and valid till
February 1, 1955.
He owns a single contract carriage and his
permit covers the whole of the Agra region which comprises the
six districts of Mathura, Agra, Aligarh, Etah, Etawah and Mainipuri. No special route or routes are indicated in his permit and
the tenninii of his operation are the frontien; of this region on all
sides.
In 1955, the Government of Uttar Pradesh, purporting to
act under s. 3 of the U. P. Road Transport Services (Development) Act, 1955, framed a scheme for nationalisation of transport services in Uttar Pradesh.
The scheme which was then
F
G
H
A
•
c
D
ROSllAN LAL v. STATE (Hidayatul/ah !.)
843
framed was struck down by an order of the High Court of Allahabad on the petition of some private operators.
In 1955,
the
!1-lotor Vehicles Act, 1939 was amended by the introduction of
Chapter IV A dealing with special provisions relating to. State
Transport Undertakings.
This amendment was introduced by the
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956 with effect from February 16, 1957.
After the an1ending Act the scheme was recon·
sidered by the State Government and action was taken
under
Chapter IVA to notify it under s. 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act.
lo this scheme 56 routes, which were mentioned by name, were·
removed from the operation of contract carriage permits issued to
private operators in the Agra region and Government announced·
!bat 'adequate State Road Transport contract carriage services'
would be provided on those routes or portions thereof. The functioning of transport services other than those put by the State Road
Transport Services was prohibited on all those routes.
The private operators objected again but their objections were over-ruled
aud the scheme was published in the Gazette on October 17, 1959.
A writ petition (Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 26622 of
1959) was filed by the appellant and others objecting to the scheme
on various grounds.
This was allowed on February 1, 1962 by
Mr. Justice Oak who set aside the scheme and remanded it for reoonsideration in the light of his order.
The scheme was not struck
down in full but only partially in respect of the petitioners in the
High Court.
It was ordered, however, that the State Government
would be at liberty to enforce the scheme in other respects. The
main reason for striking down the scheme in respect of those peti·
tioners was that their objections were not con~idered and they were
not given a reasonable opportunity to produce evidence in support
F
of their objections.
After remand objections were considered and an order was
passed by the Legal Remembrancer on October 18, 1963 by which
the scheme was reaffirmed over-ruling the objections. The only
change made was that instead of the provision of "adequate"
G contract carriage service by the State Road Transport Contract
Carriage Services it was provided that "16 contract carriage services
or more or less in accordance with the need from tinle to time"
would be provided on the routes or portion thereof which were
notified.
The appellant filed a petition in the High Court challenging the scheme.
It was heard by Mr. Justice Broome and
H
rejected by him on March 17, 1964.
The appellant then filed a
special appeal under the Letters Patent against the decision of
Mr. Justice Broome.
The High Court by the impugned order·
:844
SlJPRBMI! COURT REPORTS
[1965[ l S.C.R.
dismissed it "swnrnarily" though it passed a fairly detailed order.
lt is against the order that the present appeal has been filed.
The first contention of Mr. G. S. Pathak is that although the
scheme purports to be under s. 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act,
the requirements of that section were not borne in mind inasmucsh
as the scheme framed under s. 3 of the U.P. Act was without any
change approved and notified after the successive remands by the
High Court.
It is therefore necessary to see how far the two
provisions differ in their requirements.
Section 3 of the U.P.
Act laid down the power of the State Government to run Road
Transport Services as follows :-
"3. Power of the State Government to run Road
Transport Services.-
( 1) Where the State Government is of the opinion
that it is necessary in the interests of the general public
and for subscrving the common good, or for maintaining
and developing efficient road transport system so to
direct, it may, by notification in the official Gaulle
declare that the road transport services in general, or
any particular class of such services on any route or
portion thereof as may be specified, shall be run · and
operated exclusively by the State Government, or by the
State Government in conjunction with railways or be run
and operated partly by the State Government and partly
by others under and in accordance with the provisions
of this Act.
(2) The notification under sub-section ( 1) shall be
conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.,.
Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act provided as follows:-
"68C. Preparation and publication of scheme of
road transport service of a State Trapsport undertaking.
Where any State transport undeqtaking is of opinion
that for the purpose of providing ad efficient, adequate,
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
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
ROSHAN LAL v. STATE (Hidayatu/lah ].)
845
the nature of the services proposed to be rendered, the
area or route proposed be covered and such other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed, and shall
cause every such scheme to be published in the Official
Gazette and also in such other manner as the State Government may direct."
It is contended that the requirements of the former section which
were the conditions precedent for action are not the same as the
requirements of s. 68C.
It is no doubt true that while s. 68C
makes a mention of an "efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service" "in the public interest"
the U.P. Act merely mentioned "the interest of the general public"
"subserving the common good or for maintaining and developing
efficient road transport system."
The change of verbiage, however, does not make a change in the requirements.
It would be
wrong to think that even under the U.P. Act Government would
not think of an 'adequate', 'economical' or 'properly co-ordinated'
road transport service when it chose to provide. road transport
services for the common good and for maintaining and developing
efficient road transport system.
The change in language is no
doubt there but the intention underlying the words is the same and
even if the exact words of s. 68C might not have been present
before the framers of the scheme, it is quite obvious that they took
into account those very factors.
Indeed, the use of the words
"adequate State road transport contract carriage service" in cl. ( 3)
of the scheme framed and notified in 1959 reproduces the language
of s. 68C and not that of s. 3. This suggests that the requirements
of s. 68C were probably borne in mind.
Even if they were not
and only the requirements of the U.P. Act were borne in mind,
we find no difficulty in holding that as the requirements are basically
the same, the exercise of power must be referred to s. 68C
under which it has validity, and not to s. 3 of the U.P. Act.
This
ground of objection was rightly over-ruled by the High Court.
It was next oontended that the provision of '16 contract
carriages or more or less' under cl. (3) of the present scheme does
not carry out s. 68C either in spirit or in terms.
Section 68C
requir.es 'adequate' services to be maintained and the fixing of 16
carriages in advance, it 1s said, does not carry out the purpose of
that provision.
It i~ also contended that as this number iS likely
to be changed the scheme itself would be open to challenge whenever the number is less than the adequate number required. It
may be pointed out that on the former
occasion the provision
846
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1965] 1 S.C.R.
about ·adequate' carriages was challenged as too vague.
It is
A
because of that challenge that the number of carriages is
now
shown and it is provided that this number may be more or less as
the occasion demands.
We read the scheme as providing sixteen
contract carriages.
We need not consider whether it would become inadequate in the future.
At the moment it is stated that 16
carriages will be provided and it is not affirmed that this number
B
.. is in any way inadequate.
The last contention is the most serious of all.
It is submitted
that the scheme is not properly framed because it provides for the
operation of contract carriages on certain routes to the exclusion of
the appellant who holds a permit for an area irrespective of any c
route or routes.
It is contended that the framers of the scheme
have confused between a stage carriage permit and a contract
carriage permit, since the former is granted for a route or routes
and the latter only for an area.
The argument is that if State road
transport contract carriages were to be provided the scheme should
D
have indicated an area in which they were to operate and that area
shOllld have been excluded instead of dismembering the area of
the appellant by mentioning the routes.
Such a procedure, it is
mbmitted, is contrary to the scheme of the grant of permits undec
Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act.
On behalf of the respondent it is submitted that the notification of the 56 routes curtail& t:
the area such as it was and that there is no breach of the provi-
~ion.~ of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Under the Motor Vehicles Act there is no doubt a distinction
between area and route in some of the sections but in others that
distinction does not seem to be preserved.
These terrn5--l'o11te
and area-were explained in C. P. C. Motor Services, Mysore v,
The State of Mysore and Anr.( 1 ) and it was pointed out that undm
the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 these two words
sometimes stand for the road on which the omnibuses run or
port.ions thereof.
A similar view was earlier expressed in Kottdala Rao v. A. P. State Road Transport Corpn.(') In Dosa Satyanarayanamurty etc. v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation ( •), Subba Rao J., observed :
"Under s. 68C of the Act the scheme may be framed
in respect of any area or a route or a portion of any area
or a portion of a route.
There is no inherent inconsis-
--·-· .. ----
(!) (1962J Supp. I S.C.R. 717.
(2) A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 82.
(3) [1961) I s.c.R. 642 at 664.
~·
G
H
A
B
c
•
D
E
F
G
H
ROSHAN LAL v. STATE (Hidayatu/lah J.)
84 7
!ency between an "area" and a "route".
The proposed
route is also an area limited to the route proposed.
The
scheme may as well propose
to operate a transport
service in respect of a new route from point A to point
B and that route would certainly be an area within the
meaning of s. 68C."
The argument thus loses a great deal of its force but there are
other reasons too which show that the contention is misconceived.
By s. 2 ( 3) a contract carriage is defined as a motor vehicle
which carries a passenger or passengers on hire or reward under a
contract from one point to another without stopping to pick up or
set down along the line of that route passengers not included in
the contract.
A stage carriage is defined as a motor vehicle
carrying or adopted to carry passengers for hire or reward at
separate fares paid for the whole journey or for stages of the
journey.
The distinction between the two is this: the contract
carriage is engaged for the whole of the journey between two
points for carriage of a person or persons hiring it but it has not
the right to pick up other passengers en route. The stage carriago
on the other hand, runs between two points irrespective of any
prior contract and it is boarded· by passengers en route who pay
the fare for the distance theY.. propose to travel.
Mr. Pathak
contends that if one examines the scheme of ss. 46 and 49 one
finds that the application for a stage carriage permit is for a
route or routes or area or areas but the application for a contract
carriage is only for an area for which the permit is required. He
contends, therefore, that as contract carriages do not ply on routes
a scheme curtailing a contract carriage permit must be for a part
of the area covered· by the permit and that it cannot be for a route
or routes.
He also refers to s. 68G in which two separate principles and methods for the determination of compensation for the
curtailment of areas and routes is provided and submits that this
also points out that a contract carriage· permit is by an area and
not by a route and consequently the indication of the route on
which the carriages of State undertakings would run is ineffective
to curtail the area of a private operator and the scheme must
therefore fail.
On the other hand, it may be pointed out that
s. 51(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act itself provicfes as follows:-
"51 (2) : The Regional Transport Authority, if it
decides to grant a contract carriage permit, n1ay,, subject
to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to
848 .
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1965) l S.C.R.
the permit any one or more of the following conditions,
namely:-
(i) that the vehicle or vehicles shall be used only in a
specified area or on a specified route or routes; ..
This provision clearly shows that the area at the co=encemcnt
of the permit can be cut down by notifying certain routes aad
there seems to be no bar to doing it later in view of a scheme of
nationalisation.
,
A
B
In our judgment, the argument of the respondents must be
accepted. If under s. 51 ( 2 )( i) a permit for a contract carriage C
could be limited to specified route or routes notwithstanding that
,.
the petition for such a permit must be for an· area there is no
difficulty in accepting a scheme which cuts-down the area by sul>-.
tracting a few routes.
By the taking over of the routes the area
is as effectively cut down as when an area is included in the permit
but routes are indicated on which alone the contract carriag._es
D
can ply.
There are two other arguments which support the contention
of the respondents.
Under s. 68B the provisions of Chapter IV A
apply notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained
in Chapter IV of the Act. Sections 46 to 49 are in Chapter IV E
and no inconsistency between a scheme framed under s. · 68C and
any provision of Chapter IV can be made a ground of attack.
Secondly, under s. 68F when the permits are issued to a State
transport undertaking for stage carriages or contract carriages it
is provided that the Regional Transport Authority may modify the
terms of any existing permit so as to , "curtail the area or route
covered by the permit in so far .as such permit relates to the notified
area or notified route". ·This would indicate that power is reserved
to modify the existing permits either by curtailing the area or by
curtailing the_ routes. ·The taking over of certain routes exclusively for the State undertakings renders that portion of the area
ineffective for a private operator such as the appellant who holds
a permit for the whole rarea including those routes.
The High
Court was, therefore, right in holding that by the notified scheme
the routes which were mentioned must be taken to have been
subtracted from the area to which the permit applied.
In other
words, there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal fails and is
dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismirsed.
G
H
'
y