1973 (12) TMI 94 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of schemes approved by the Uttar Pradesh Government under Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for inter-State routes.
2. Jurisdiction of State Governments to approve schemes for inter-State routes.
3. Cancellation of permits issued by Regional Transport Authorities of Rajasthan.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements for scheme approval and notification.
5. Constitutional validity of the actions taken by the Uttar Pradesh Government.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Schemes Approved by Uttar Pradesh Government Under Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:
The appellants questioned the validity of the schemes approved by the Uttar Pradesh Government under Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which excluded private operators from inter-State routes. The schemes were approved following the procedural requirements, including publication in the Official Gazette and obtaining the Central Government's approval. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of these schemes, affirming that the State Government had the authority to approve such schemes for inter-State routes, provided they obtained prior approval from the Central Government as stipulated in the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 68D.

2. Jurisdiction of State Governments to Approve Schemes for Inter-State Routes:
The appellants argued that a State Government could not approve a scheme for an inter-State route as its powers could not extend beyond its territorial limits. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, stating that the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 68D explicitly allowed State Governments to approve schemes for inter-State routes with the prior approval of the Central Government. The Court clarified that the approval covered the entire inter-State route, not just the portion within the State's territory, thereby necessitating Central Government approval to ensure coordination between States.

3. Cancellation of Permits Issued by Regional Transport Authorities of Rajasthan:
The appellants, who were bus operators from Rajasthan, contended that their permits could not be unilaterally canceled by another State. The Supreme Court noted that the permits issued by the Regional Transport Authorities of Rajasthan and countersigned by the Regional Transport Authorities of Uttar Pradesh were canceled following the scheme's approval. The Court found no illegality in this process, as the cancellation was part of implementing the approved scheme, which had obtained the necessary approvals, including that of the Central Government.

4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Scheme Approval and Notification:
The appellants claimed that they were not given effective notice of the proposed schemes as the notifications were published only in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette. The Supreme Court found that the procedural requirements for publication and notification were duly complied with, including putting up notices on the notice boards of the State transport authorities of both Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. The Court upheld the Division Bench's finding that the appellants had knowledge of the proposed schemes and the relevant provisions for publication were adhered to.

5. Constitutional Validity of the Actions Taken by the Uttar Pradesh Government:
The appellants argued that the Uttar Pradesh Government's approval of the scheme for an inter-State route was unconstitutional as it amounted to making law for areas beyond its territorial limits. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, stating that the State Government, in approving a scheme, exercised statutory power vested by Parliamentary legislation, not legislative power under Article 245 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the scheme's approval was a statutory function effectuating the objective of State monopoly in transport services, which did not encroach upon the executive sphere of another State. The Court also noted that the actions were taken with the concurrence of the Rajasthan Government, further negating any claims of unconstitutional overreach.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the schemes approved by the Uttar Pradesh Government under Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for inter-State routes. The Court affirmed that the procedural requirements were met, the necessary approvals were obtained, and there was no unconstitutional exercise of power by the State Government. The appellants' contentions were found to be without merit, and the schemes and notifications were held to be valid in law.