Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from a nationalisation scheme contemplated under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by the State Transport Undertaking of Uttar Pradesh. The scheme related to an inter-State route from Agra in Uttar Pradesh to Bharatpur in Rajasthan, excluding private operators from operating on that route. The State Transport Undertaking prepared four schemes and published the necessary notifications in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette, with copies sent to Rajasthan for pasting on notice boards of Transport Authorities. A statutory enquiry was held, objections were raised by some operators, but not the appellants, and the schemes were approved with the concurrence of the State of Rajasthan. The appellants, who were private bus operators, challenged the scheme on the ground that non-publication of the scheme in the Rajasthan Official Gazette was a contravention of a vital formality under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. They also raised a point that authorities in Uttar Pradesh could not validly cancel permits held by bus operators of Rajasthan. The High Court dismissed the petition, and appeals were filed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had earlier rejected constitutional challenges to the identical scheme in Khazan Singh v. State of U.P. The present appeals were confined to statutory non-compliance grounds. The court examined Section 68C and noted that it enables State Transport Undertakings to prepare schemes excluding private operators from bus routes and provides for publication of the scheme in the Official Gazette and in such other manner as the State Government may direct. The court observed that while the wholesome intendment of Sections 68C and 68D would be fulfilled if schemes relating to inter-State routes were published in all States concerned, the section as drafted merely requires publication in the concerned Official Gazette of the State whose undertaking initiates the project for nationalisation. The court held that the singular does not necessarily include the plural in statutory construction, and the expression 'in the Official Gazette' does not change its semantics when the route concerned is inter-State. Accordingly, non-publication in the Rajasthan Gazette was not a fatal flaw. The court also upheld the authority of Uttar Pradesh officials to cancel permits of Rajasthan operators, agreeing with the High Court's reasoning. The court noted that it would be desirable for State Transport Undertakings to get inter-State schemes published in all States through which the route runs, but that was a matter for the legislature. The appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Publication of Scheme - Section 68C Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Interpretation of "Official Gazette" for inter-State routes - Section 68C requires publication only in the Official Gazette of the State whose State Transport Undertaking initiates the nationalisation scheme, even if the route is inter-State; the wholesome intendment would be fulfilled by publication in all concerned States, but non-publication in other States is not fatal - The scheme was published in U.P. Gazette, and the U.P. Undertaking initiated the project; the expression "in the Official Gazette" does not change meaning for inter-State routes, and the singular does not compel reading the plural - Held that the legal objection was overruled, and the scheme was not invalidated for non-publication in Rajasthan Gazette (Paras 1-5) B) Motor Vehicles Act - Cancellation of Permits - Chapter IVA Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Jurisdiction of initiating State authorities to cancel permits of operators from other States - The contention that authorities in Uttar Pradesh could not validly cancel permits held by bus operators of Rajasthan was rejected by the High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court - The court found no merit in the argument and concurred with the High Court's reasoning - Held that the authorities in U.P. could validly cancel permits held by Rajasthan operators (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-publication of inter-State route scheme in Rajasthan Official Gazette was fatal under Section 68C of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939; whether Uttar Pradesh authorities could validly cancel permits held by Rajasthan bus operators
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision. It held that Section 68C requires publication only in the Official Gazette of the State whose State Transport Undertaking initiates the nationalisation scheme, and non-publication in other States' Gazettes does not invalidate the scheme. It also upheld the authority of U.P. officials to cancel permits of Rajasthan operators. The court suggested that it would be desirable for inter-State schemes to be published in all concerned States' Gazettes, but this was a matter for the legislature.
Law Points
- Section 68C Motor Vehicles Act
- 1939 requires publication only in Official Gazette of State whose undertaking initiates scheme
- even for inter-State routes
- singular does not always include plural in statutory construction
- Rule 4 compliance with pasting notices on notice boards sufficient
- authorities of initiating State can cancel permits of operators from other States
