PETITIONER:
RAMESHWAR PRASAD ETC., ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT24/02/1983
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
SEN, A.P. (J)
CITATION:
1983 AIR 383 1983 SCR (2) 418
1983 SCC (2) 195 1983 SCALE (1)152
CITATOR INFO :
D 1992 SC 443 (13,14)
ACT:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as in force in the State of
Uttar Pradesh- S. 43-A as amended by U.P. Act 15 of 1976
read with s. 47 as amended by Central Act 47 of 1978
Interpretation of-State Government cannot issue directions
under sub-s. (1) of s. 43-A for grant of stage carriage
permits to an eligible applicants after amendment of s. 43-A
by U. P. Act 15 of 1976-While issuing directions under sub-
s. (1) of s. 43-A State Government cannot ignore provisions
contained in sub-ss. (1) and (1A) to (1H) of s. 47.
Interpretation - Rule of construction of an amended
provision.
Words and Phrases -`Public interest'-What it means in
the context of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
HEADNOTE:
A 'stage carriage' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
means a motor vehicle which carries more than six persons
for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for
individual passengers either for the whole journey or for
stages of the journey and for plying such a vehicle it is
necessary to obtain a permit from the appropriate Transport
Authority. While considering an application for such a
permit, the Transport Authority must, under cls. (a) to (f)
of sub-s. (1) of s. 47, have regard to the interest of the
public generally, the advantages to the public of the
service to be provided, the adequacy of other passenger
transport services operating between the places to be
served, the operation by the applicant of other transport
services, etc., and also take into consideration the
representations made by local or police authorities and by
persons already providing passenger transport facilities by
any means along or near the proposed route or area. The
State Government may, under sub-s. (1) of s. 43, having
regard to the advantages offered to the public by the
development of motor transport, the desirability of
preventing uneconomic competition among motor vehicles,
etc., issue appropriate directions to the Transport
Authority
The subject matter of regulation of motor vehicles
being within the scope of entry 35 of the Concurrent List,
the Act in its application to tho State of Uttar Pradesh was
amended in 1972 by the U.P. Legislature by the introduction
of s. 43-A which was a new provision. While sub-s. (1)
thereof conferred power on the State Government to issue
directions of a general character in public interest in
respect of any matter relating to road transport, sub-s.
419
(2) specifically conferred the power to issue directions
regarding grant of stage carriage permits to all eligible
applicants if the State Government was of the opinion that
it was in the public interest to do so. Further, under sub-
s. (2) of s. 43-A, the provisions of s. 47 stood amended to
the effect that while considering an application for permit,
it was no longer necessary for the Transport Authority to
have regard to the adequacy of other passenger transport
services operating between the places to be served or to the
operation by the applicant of other transport services; nor
was the Transport Authority required to look into
representations made by any one other than local or police
authorities. The State Government, acting under s. 43-A,
issued directions in March, 1972 for grant of permits to all
eligible applicants without any restriction as to the number
of permits to be issued on any route. The validity of s. 43-
A and the directions issued thereunder were upheld by the
Court in Hans Raj Kehar & Ors v. Srate of UP. & Ors [1975] 1
S.C.R. 9l6. But, within a short time, the State Government
realised the necessity of reviewing the policy of issuing
permits to all eligible applicants and amended s. 43-A with
retrospective effect by the Uttar Pradesh Act 15 of 1976.
While sub s. (1) was retained as such, sub-s. (2) was
substituted by an entirely new sub-section. The Statement of
objects and Reasons appended to the Amending Act stated that
it had become necessary to reconsider the policy of granting
bus permits liberally with a view to checking unproductive
capital expenditure and unnecessary consumption of fuel,
preventing elimination of small operators as a consequence
of unreasonable competition, etc. and authorising the State
Government to issue necessary directions from time to time
in regard to the number of permits that may be granted in
respect of any route or area, the preference to be given to
specifically deserving categories, etc. The State Government
thereafter issued directions to the Transport Authorities to
ensure that the operation of the total number of stage
carriages on any route was economically viable.
Section 47 was amended by the Central Act 47 of 1978.
The proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 47 was amended by providing
that in addition to a registered cooperative society, an
application for a stage carriage permit from a person who
has a valid licence for driving transport vehicles shall he
given preference over applications from individual owners.
Parliament also introduced new sub-ss. (1A) to (1H) in s. 47
providing for reservation of certain percentage of stage
carriage permits for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes and
weaker sections of the community and empowered the State
Government to frame rules for implementing sub-ss. (1A) to
(1H) of s 47. These amendments came into force on January
16, 1979.
On January 10, 1981 the State Government issued a
notification directing the Transport Authorities to issue
stage carriage permits to all eligible applicants and
specifying that there should be no upper limit to the number
of stage carriages for which permits might be granted. On
January 23, 1981, by another notification, of the Transport
Authorities were directed to have regard only to matters
referred to in cls. (a), (b), (d) and (f) of sub-s. (l) of
s. 47 and to take into consideration representations made by
local or police authorities only. Tho appellants challenged
the notifications under Article 226.
420
The High Court dismissed the petitions repelling the
contention that in the absence of reservation of the
required percentage of permits for persons belonging to the
Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and weaker sections
as provided in s. 47 the grant of permits would be vitiated.
According to the High Court the question of reservation
would arise only in those cases where the seats or articles
are limited for distribution or allotment but where there is
no limit or no fixed number, the question of reservation
would not arise. The High Court said that the Statement of
objects and Reasons appended to the Amending Act 15 of 1976
cannot override the clear provisions of s. 43-A as amended
by that Act and held that though the two impugned
notifications did not follow the procedure prescribed by
sub-s. (2) of s. 43-A, they could be sustained under sub-s.
(1) of s.43-A. It relied on the decision in Hans Raj Kehar's
case to hold that large number of buses operating on
different routes would be for the convenience and benefit of
the travelling public.
Allowing the appeals,
^
HELD: Whenever a court is called upon to interpret an
amended provision it has to bear in mind the history of the
provision, the mischief which the legislature attempted to
remedy, the remedy provided by the amendment and the reason
for providing such remedy. Section 43-A of the Act as in
force in the State of U.P. was amended by the U.P. Act 15 of
1976. By the substitution of the former sub-s. (2) by the
new sub-s (2) in s. 43-A the legislature clearly expressed
itself against the policy of granting permits to all
eligible applicants without any consideration to the needs
of any particular locality or route or to the qualifications
of applicants. After the amendment, sub-s. (1) of S. 43-A
did not comprehend within its scope the power to issue
directions for issuing permits to all eligible applicants
without any sort of restriction relevant to the scheme of
the Act. The sub-section states that the State Government
may issue such directions of a general character as it may
consider necessary in the public interest. 'Public interest'
under the Act does not mean the interests of the operators
or of the passengers only. It takes within its fold several
factors such as, the maximum number of permits that may be
Issued on a route or in any area having regard to the needs
and convenience of the travelling public, the non-
availability of sufficient number of stage carriages in
other routes or areas which may be in need of running of
additional services, the problems of law and order,
availability of fuel, etc. To say that larger the number of
stage carriages in any route or area more convenient it
would be to the members of the public is an over-
simplification of a problem with myriad facets affecting the
general public. The Act itself contains provisions relating
to licensing of drivers and conductors, specifications of
motor vehicles, co-ordination of road and rail transport,
prevention of deterioration of road system, prevention of
Uneconomic competition among motor vehicles, etc. Any
direction given by the State Government under s. 43-A
should, therefore, be in conformity with all matters
regarding which the statute has made provision. In this
situation to say that any number of permits can be issued to
any eligible operator without any upper limit is to overstep
the limits of delegation of statutory power. [444 A-H; 445
A-E]
In the instant case, a reading of the two notifications
shows that the State Government ignored the legislative
policy underlying the U.P. Act 15 of
421
1976 by which the new sub-s. (2) of s. 43-A was enacted in
substitution of the former sub-s. (2) with retrospective
effect. The new sub-s. (2) was introduced by the State
legislature after it had realised the mistake committed by
the State Government in issuing the notification in the year
1972 directing the issue of bus permits liberally in favour
of all eligible applicants which had resulted in investment
of unproductive capital expenditure and under-utilisation of
capital and fuel and in unreasonable competition which
eventually eliminated small operators from business. [441
D-F]
(ii) The State Government also ignored the new policy
governing the issue of permits introduced by Parliament by
amending s. 47 of the Act in 1978. The High Court erred in
not noticing that by issuing the notification containing a
direction to the Transport Authorities to issue limitless
number of permits, the State Government had attempted to
circumvent sub-ss. (1) and (IA) to (IH) of a s. 47. The
observation of the High Court that preferences have to be
shown and reservations have to be made only when there is
scarcity of permits and since there were no restrictions on
the number of permits to be issued there was no necessity to
make any such provision is shocking. Preference and
reservations have value only when there is a limit on the
number of permits to be issued and in the context of the Act
there should necessarily be a limit on the issue of permits
to operate motor vehicles in respect of any route or area.
By the D method adopted by it the State Government has
virtually allowed the rich and well-to-do businessman - who
can bear the loss for some time to introduce any number of
vehicles on a route or in any area until all the small
operators who also may take the permits to leave the field
owing to the inevitable loss that ensues by the operation of
an unlimited number of vehicles. The two notifications in
question are clearly outside the scope of the Act. [445 F-H;
446 A-E]
(iii) The observations in Hans Raj Kehar's case are
inapplicable to the present cases. In that case the Court
was concerned with sub-s. (2) of s. 43-A as it stood then.
At that time, the sub-section contained a clear legislative
policy which considered that there could be no public
prejudice if all eligible applicants were granted permits.
Whatever the Court may have observed while considering that
provision would not apply now as There is a clear departure
made by the legislature from that policy when it enacted the
new sub-s. (2) of s. 43-A. In the face of this amendment by
which the former sub-s. (2) of s.43-A which specifically
authorised the State Government when it was satisfied that
it was necessary to do so in the public interest to issue
directions to the Transport Authorities to grant permits to
all eligible applicants was deliberately taken away by the
State legislature, the High Court was wrong in holding that
such power was still available under sub-s. (1) of s. 43-A
which was widely worded. [443 C-H]
Hans Raj Kehar & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [1975] 2
S.C.R. 916, held inapplicable.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1269-
71 of 1982.
422
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and order
dated 23rd the March, 1982 of the Allahabad High Court in
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition Nos. 2328, 2424 and 1998
of 1981.
Shanti Bhusan and R.R. Jain for the Appellants.
Mrs. Shobha Dikshit for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH, J. In these appeals by special leave
filed against the common judgment dated March 23, 1982 of
the Allahabad High Court, the validity of two Notifications
issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under section 43-A
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939)
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as in force in the
State of Uttar Pradesh arises for consideration. The two
impugned Notifications are reproduced below:
I. “Notification
No. 68 T/XXX-4-15-KM/79
Dated: Lucknow: January 10, 1981.
Whereas, the Government of Uttar Pradesh is of
opinion that it is in the public interest to grant
stage carriage permits (except in respect of routes or
areas for which schemes have been published under
section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) to all
eligible applicants:
Now. therefore, in exercise of the powers under
section 43.A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the
Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to direct that the
stage carriage permits (except in respect of routes or
areas for which schemes have been published under
section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) shall be
granted according to the provisions of the Act to all
eligible applicants and there shall be no upper limit
to the number of stage carriages for which permits may
be granted.
By order
Karnail Singh,
Sachiv
423
II. Notification
No. 241 T/XXX-4-15-P/79
Dated: January 23, 1981
The Governor being satisfied that it is expedient in
the public interest so to do, is pleased to direct in
exercise of the powers under section 43-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. 4 of 1939) that while
considering applications for stage carriage permits,
the State Transport Authority or a Regional Authority:
(i) shall have regard only to matters referred to in
clauses (a), (b), (d) and (f) of sub-section (1)
of section 47 of the said Act and shall also take
into consideration representations made by the
local authority or police authority within whose
jurisdiction any part of the proposed route or
area lies; and
(ii) shall be deemed to have made sufficient compliance
of the provisions of section 57 of the said Act,
if it intimates the particulars of the
applications to such local authority and police
authority for making representations, if any,
within a period of fifteen days from the date of
despatch of the intimation with the stipulation
that if no representation is received with in the
prescribed period of time, it shall be presumed
that they have no representation to make, and has
considered any representation made by such local
authority and police authority.
By order
Karnail Singh,
Sachiv.”
The appellants who are stage carriage operators
challenged The validity of the above Notifications in the
writ petitions filed by them under Article 226 of the
Constitution before the High Court inter alia on the ground
that they were ultra vires the provisions of the Act under
which they had been issued. The High Court dismissed the
writ petitions after negativing the contentions of the
424
appellants. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the
appellants have preferred these appeals by special leave as
stated above.
It is necessary at this stage to give a resume of the
relevant statutory provisions to understand the rival
contentions of the parties. On finding that the Indian Motor
Vehicles Act, 1914 which Was brought into force at an early
stage of development of motor transport was inadequate to
meet the new situation created by the growth of motor
transport by the year 1939, the Central Legislature passed
the Act for the purpose of regulating motor traffic in the
interests alike of the safety and convenience of the public
and of the development of a coordinated system of transport.
The Act underwent major alterations in 1956 and 1969.
Broadly the Act provided inter alia for registration of
motor vehicles, licensing of drivers and conductors, grant
of permits to ply public service vehicles and public
carriers, operation of road transport service by State
transport undertakings in any area or on any route to the
exclusion, complete or partial of other persons,
construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles,
control of traffic, insurance of motor vehicles against
third party risks and offences, penalties and procedure. The
State Governments were entrusted with the duty of framing
rules on various matters connected with the topics dealt
with by the Act. The subject of regulation of motor vehicles
being within the scope of Entry 35 – mechanically propelled
vehicles including the principles on which taxes on such
vehicles are to be levied-in List III of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution, various amendments were made
from time to time by several State Legislatures with the
assent of the President of India either adding to or
modifying the provisions of the Act. Chapter IV of the Act
which includes section 42 to section 68 contains provisions
pertaining to the control of motor vehicles. Section 42 of
the Act provides that no owner of a transport vehicle shall
r use or permit the use of the vehicle in any public place
whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any
passenger or goods save in accordance with the conditions of
a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State
Transport Authority or the Commission authorising the use of
the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle
is being used. A ‘transport vehicle’ is defined in section
2(33) of the Act as a public service vehicle or a goods
vehicle. A ‘public service vehicle’ is defined in section
2(25) of the Act as any motor vehicle used or adapted to be
used for the carriage
425
of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a motor cab,
contract carriage and stage carriage. Section 2(29) of the
Act states that a ‘stage carriage’ means a motor vehicle
carrying or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding
the driver which carries passengers for hire or reward at
separate fares paid by or for individual passengers, either
for the whole journey or for stages of the journey. Section
45(1) of the Act prescribes that every application for a
permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of
the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or
vehicles. When the vehicle is to be used in two or more
regions, the applications for permits may be made as
provided in the provisos to section 45(1) or section 45(2)
of the Act, as the case may be. The constitution of the
Regional Transport Authorities and the State Transport
Authorities is dealt with by section 44 of the Act. A State
Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority shall
consist of a Chairman who has had judicial experience or
experience as an appellate or revisional authority under any
law relating to land revenue and in the case of a State
Transport Authority, such other officials and non-officials,
not being less than two, and, in the case of Regional
Transport Authority such other persons (whether officials or
not) not being less than two, as the State Government may
think fit to appoint. An application for a stage carriage
permit shall have to contain the particulars mentioned in
section 46 of the Act. Prior to its amendment in 1978,
section 47 as amended by Act 100 of 1956 read as follows:
“47. Procedure of Regional Transport Authority in
considering application for stage carriage permits.-(1)
A Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an
application for a stage carriage permit. have regard to
the P following matters, namely:
(a) the interest of the public generally;
(b) the advantages to the public of the service to be
provided, including the saving of time likely to
be effected thereby and any convenience arising
from journeys not being broken;
(c) the adequacy of other passenger transport services
operating or likely to operate in the near future,
426
whether by road or other means, between the places
to be served.
(d) the benefit to any particular locality or
localities likely to be afforded by the service;
(e) the operation by the applicant of other transport
services, including those in respect of which
applications from him for permits are pending;
(f) the condition of the roads included in the
proposed route or area;
and shall also take into consideration any
representations made by persons already providing
passenger transport facilities by any means along
or near the proposed route or area, or by any
association representing persons interested in the
provision of road trans port facilities recognised
in this behalf by the State Government, or by any
local authority or police authority within whose
jurisdiction any part of the proposed route or
area lies:
Provided that other conditions being equal, an
application for a stage carriage permit from a
cooperative society registered or deemed to have been
registered under any enactment in force for the time
being shall, as far as may be, be given preference over
applications from individual owners.
(2) A Regional Transport Authority shall refuse to
grant a stage carriage permit if it appears from any
timetable furnished that the provisions of this Act
relating to the speed at which vehicles may be driven
are likely to be contravened:
Provided that before such refusal an opportunity
shall be given to the applicant to amend the time-table
so as to conform to the said provisions.
(3) A Regional Transport Authority may, having
regard to the matters mentioned in sub-section (1),
limit the
427
number of stage carriages generally or of any specified
type for which stage carriage permits may be granted in
the region or on any specified area or on any specified
route within the region.”
The procedure in applying for and granting permits is
set out in section 57 of the Act. Section 48 of the Act
provides that subject to section 47, a Regional Transport
Authority may, on an application made to it under section
46, grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the
application or with such modifications as it deems fit or
refuse to grant such a permit. If the Regional Transport
Authority decides to grant a stage carriage permit, it may
attach to it all or any of the conditions mentioned in
section 48(3) of the Act. The proceedings before a Regional
Transport Authority are quasi judicial in character. While
considering the application for the grant of a stage
carriage permit the Regional Transport Authority has to
consider all representations referred to in section 57(3).
Sub-section (5) of section 57 of the Act provides that when
any representation such as is referred to in sub-section (3)
thereof is made, the Regional Transport Authority shall
dispose of the application at a public hearing at which the
applicant and the persons making the representations shall
have an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a
duly authorised representative. Representations can be made
among others by any person who is providing transport
facilities on the route or in the area, any rival applicant,
police authorities and local authorities. Any person who
satisfies the qualifications mentioned in section 64 of the
Act and who is aggrieved by the resolution of the Regional
Transport Authority may file an appeal before the State
Transport P Appellate Tribunal which should consist of a
wholetime judicial officer not below the rank of a District
Judge. An order of a Regional Transport Authority or of a
State Transport Authority against which no appeal can be
filed is subject to revision by the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal under section 64-A of the Act. Subsection
(1) of section 43 of the Act which confers power on the
State Government to control transport reads thus:
“43. Power to State Government to control
transport-
(1) A State Government having regard to:
428
(a) the advantages offered to the public, trade and
industry by the development of motor transport,
(b) the desirability of coordinating road and rail
trans port.
(c) the desirability of preventing the deterioration
of the road system, and
(d) the desirability of preventing uneconomic
competition among motor vehicles, may, from time
to time, by notification in the official Gazette,
issue directions to the State Transport Authority:
(i) regarding the fixing of fares and freights
(including the maximum and minimum in respect
thereof) for stage carriages, contract
carriages and public carriers;
(ii) regarding the prohibition or restriction,
subject to such conditions as may be
specified in the directions, of the conveying
of long distance goods traffic generally, or
of specified classes of goods, by private or
public carriers,
(iii) regarding the grant of permits for
alternative routes or areas, to persons In
whose cases the existing permits are not
renewed in pursuance of the provisions of
sub-section (1-D) of section 68-F, or are
cancelled or the terms thereof are modified
in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of
section 68-F;
(iv) regarding any other matter which may appear
to the State Government necessary or
expedient for giving effect to any agreement
entered into with the Central Government or
any other State Government or the Government
of any other country relating to the
regulation of motor transport generally,
429
and in particular to its coordination with A
other means of transport and the conveying of
long distance goods traffic:
Provided that no such notification shall be issued
unless a draft of the proposed directions is published
in the official Gazette specifying therein a date being
not less than one month after such publication, on or
after which the draft will be taken into consideration
and any objection or suggestion which may be received
has, in consultation with the State Transport
Authority, been considered after giving the
representatives of the interests affected an
opportunity of being heard.”
In the year 1972, however, the Act was amended by the
Legislature of the State of Uttar Pradesh introducing a new
section being section 43-A by the Motor Vehicles (U.P.
Amendment) Act, 1972 with the assent of the President. The
material part of section 43-A which was newly introduced by
the said amending U.P. Act read as under:
“43-A. (1) The State Government may issue such
directions of a general character as it may consider
necessary or expedient in the public interest in
respect of any matter relating to road transport to the
State Transport Authority or to any Regional Transport
Authority, and such Transport Authority shall give
effect to all such directions.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the
fore going power, where the State Government is of
opinion that it is in the public interest to grant
stage carriage permits (except in respect of routes or
areas for which schemes have been published under
section 68(C) or contract carriage permits or public
carrier permits to all eligible applicants, it may by
notification in the Gazette issue a direction accor-
dingly, and thereupon all transport authorities as well
as the State Transport Appellate Tribunal constituted
under section 64 shall proceed to consider and decide
all applications, appeals and. revisions in that behalf
(including any pending applications, appeals and
revisions) as if-
430
(a) in section 47-
(i) for sub-section (1) the following sub-
sections were substituted:
(ii) A Regional Transport Authority shall in
considering an application for a stage
carriage permit, have regard to the following
matters, namely-
(a) the interest of the public generally;
(b) the advantage to the public of the
service to be provided including the
saving of time likely to be effected
thereby and any convenience arising from
journeys not being broken;
(c) the benefit to any particular locality
or localities likely to be afforded by
the service;
and shall also take into consideration any
representation made by any local authority or
police authority within whose jurisdiction any
part of the proposed route or area lies; and
sub-section (3) were omitted
The above U.P. Act was preceded by the U.P. Ordinance
which contained more or less the same provisions. The
ordinance was substituted by the said U.P. Act. The object
of enacting section 43-A of the Act was set out in the
Statement of objects and Reasons attached to the relevant
U.P. Bill which read as follows:
“Objects and Reasons-operators engage in the race
for securing permits for stage carriage on non-nation
alised routes. Due to limitation on the number of
permits this business is controlled by a few persons.
Complaints in this regard are made every other day.
Therefore, with a view to making it easier to secure
permits in respect of non nationalised routes and to
introducing simplicity in procedure and to providing
greater employment and securing
431
equitable distribution thereof it was considered
necessary to amend sections 47, SO, SS and 64 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, suitably. Accordingly, in the
public interest and with the aforesaid object in view,
the Motor Vehicles (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) ordinance,
1972, was promulgated. This Bill is introduced to
replace the said ordinance.
Pursuant to the power conferred on it by section 43-A
of the Act, the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh
issued the following directions on March 30, 1972 by a
Notification, the relevant part of which reads as under:
“Whereas the State Government is of opinion that
it is in the public interest to grant stage carriage
permits (except in respect of routes or areas for which
schemes have been published under section 68-C of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) contract carriage permits and
public carrier permits to all eligible applicants.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred
by section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the
Governor is pleased to direct that stage carriage
permits (except in respect of routes or areas
aforesaid) contract carriage permits and public carrier
permits shall be granted according to the provisions of
the said Act to all eligible applicants.”
The validity of section 43-A of the Act introduced by
the U. P. Legislature and of the Notification dated March P
30, 1972 issued by the Government of Uttar. Pradesh pursuant
to that section was questioned in some writ petitions filed
by some motor operators in the High Court of Allahabad.
Those petitions were dismissed. On appeal this Court upheld
the validity of section 43-A of the Act as well as the
Notification by its judgment in Hans Raj Kehar & Ors. v. The
State of U.P. & Ors.(1) which was delivered on December 4,
1974. Within about three and half years from the date of the
above said notification the Government of Uttar Pradesh
realised that it was necessary to review the whole question
of issuing permits to all eligible applicants. Accor-
432
dingly the State Government issued a Notification on
September 24, 1975 which ran as follows:
“Whereas, in exercise of the power conferred by
Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the State
Government was by notification No. 1188-T/XXX-4, dated
March 30, 1972, pleased to direct that stage carriage
permits (except in respect of routes or areas
aforesaid) contract carriage permits and public carrier
permits shall be granted according to the provisions of
the said Act to all eligible applicants:
And whereas, on further consideration the State
Government is of opinion that the policy of granting
such permits to all eligible applicants requires review
with a view to:
(a) Preventing unproductive expenditure and under
utilization of capital and fuel.
(b) Preventing elimination of small operators due
to unfair competition resulting from the
issue of more permits than required for a
route.
(c) Facilitating long term planning of passenger
road transport services.
And whereas, such review is likely to take some
time and in the mean time it is necessary to stay the
disposal of all pending applications for permits or
entertainment of fresh applications.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by the said Section 43-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939, read with Section 21 of the U.P.
General Clauses Act, 1904, the Governor is pleased to
direct that:
1. The Notification No. 1198 T/XXX-4, dated 30th
March, 1972 be and is hereby rescinded with immediate
effect.
433
2. The consideration of applications for stage
carriage permits pending with any Transport Authority
shall stand postponed until further directions are
issued in this behalf by the State Government.
3. No fresh applications for such permits shall be
entertained until further directions are issued in this
behalf by the State Government.”
The above Notification shows that as a consequence of
the policy of granting permits to all eligible applicants,
necessity had arisen to take measures (i) to prevent
unproductive expenditure and under utilisation of capital
and fuel, (ii) to prevent elimination of small operators due
to unfair competition resulting from the issue of more
permits than required for a route; and (iii) to embark upon
long term planning of passenger road transport services.
It is stated that by U.P. Ordinance 35 of 1975, Section
43-A was amended. This ordinance was replaced by the Uttar
Pradesh Act 15 of 1976. By this Act, sub-section (2) of
section 43-A. which had been added in 1972 was substituted
with retrospective effect from the date of its original
enactment. Section 43-A after it was amended by the U.P. Act
15 of 1976 read as under:
“43-A. Power of State Government to issue
directions to Transport Authorities-(1) The State
Government may issue such directions of a general
character as it may consider necessary or expedient in
the public interest in respect of any matter relating
to road transport to the State Transport Authority or
to any Regional Transport Authority, and such Transport
Authority shall give effect to all such directions.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the
provisions of sub-section (1) such directions may be
given in respect of any of the following matters,
namely:
(a) the number of stage carriage or contract
carriage permits that may be granted in
respect of any route or area.
434
(b) the preference or the order of preference to
be given to or the quota to be fixed for,
specially deserving categories, such as Ex.
Army personnel, educated unemployed persons,
such persons holding driving licences as are
members of cooperative societies formed for
passenger transport business, persons
belonging to the Scheduled castes and
Scheduled Tribes.
(c) the procedure for grant of permits, and for
selection from among the applicants,
including selection by drawing of lots from
among persons belonging to the same category.
(3) Any direction under sub-section (1) may be
issued with retrospective effect.
(4) Where any direction is issued under sub-
section (1) to any Transport Authority, then any appeal
or revision pending before the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal shall also be decided in such manner
as to give effect to such directions.
(5) Where any direction is issued under sub-
section (1) with retrospective effect then
(a) any Transport Authority or the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal may review any
order passed earlier by it with a view to
making it conform to such direction and may
for that purpose cancel any permit already
issued.
(b) any Transport Authority may apply to the High
Court earlier with a view to enabling such
authority to comply with such direction.
(6) The provisions of this section shall have
effect not withstanding anything contained in sections
47, 50 and 57.”
The policy behind the above amendment was stated in the
Statement of objects and Reasons placed before the State
Legislature as follows:
435
“(5) In 1972 the State Government had accepted a
policy of granting bus permits liberally.
Reconsideration of the said policy however, became
necessary with a view to checking unproductive capital
expenditure and unnecessary consumption of fuel and
preventing the elimination of small operators as a
consequence of unreasonable competition and to removing
difficulties in the implementation of long term plans
pertaining to passenger road transport services. It was
accordingly considered necessary to amend the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939, to authorise the State Government
to issue directions from time to time in regard to the
number of permits that may be granted in respect of any
route or area, the preference to be given to specially
deserving categories and the procedure for grant of
permits.”
Pursuant to the said amended section 43-A of the Act,
the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a Notification
containing directions on March 12, 1976 in the following
terms:
“Whereas, in exercise of the powers conferred by
section 43-A of the M.V. Act, 1939, the State
Government had by a notification No. 4251-T/XXX-4-9P/72
dated September 24 1975, as amended by notification No.
4530-T/ XXX-4-75 dated October 6,1975 postponed the
consideration of applications for permits by any
transport authority in respect of non-notified routes
until further directions in this behalf of the State
Government.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by the said section 43-A (2) of the M.V. Act,
1939 read with section 21 of the General Clauses Act,
1904, the Governor is pleased to direct:
(1) That the S.T.A. and R.T. As. while fixing the
number of Additional Stage Carriage permits to be
issued at a given time on non-notified routes, shall in
addition to the consideration of the matter mentioned
in sub-section (1) of section 47 of the M.V. Act,
ensure that the operation of the total number of stage
carriages on any route, taking
436
into consideration the existing as well as the
additional permits proposed to be issued, would be
economically viable on the existing fare-structure as
per the norms as laid down by the State Government from
time to time ………………………..”
The above notification also contained directions
regarding the principle to be followed in determining the
number of permits that could be issued and reservation of
permits for operators displaced by nationalisation, educated
unemployed, members belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the
Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes, unemployed army
drivers and cooperative societies.
These directions were superseded by the issue of a
fresh notification under section 43-A by the State
Government on October 12, 1977 which was superseded by a
Notification dated October 15, 1978.
Within a fortnight from the date of the last
Notification referred to above Parliament amended the Act by
enacting The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1978 (Act 47 of
1978) which inter alia amended the proviso to subsection (1)
of section 47 of the Act and inserted sub-sections (1A) to
(1H) in that section. After this amendment, the proviso to
sub-section (1) of section 47 of the Act reads thus:
“47. (1)………….
Provided that other conditions being equal, an
application for a stage carriage permit from a co-
operative society registered or deemed to have been
registered under any enactment in force for the time
being and an application for a stage carriage permit
from a person who has a valid licence for driving
transport vehicles shall, as far as may be, be given
preference over applications from individual owners.”
The new sub-sections (1A) to (1H) of section 47 of the
Act read:
“47. (1) …………
437
(1A) The Government of a State shall reserve in
that State certain percentage of stage carriage permits
for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
Explanation-In this section and in sections 55 and
63, ‘Scheduled Castes,’ and ‘Scheduled Tribes’ have the
meanings respectively assigned to them in Article’ 366
of the Constitution.
(1B) The reservation of permits under sub-section
(1A) shall be in the same ratio as in the case of
appointments made by direct recruitment to public
services in the State.
(1C) The Government of a State may, having regard
to the extent to which persons belonging to
economically weaker sections of the community have been
granted stage carriage permits in that State:-
(a) reserve in that State such percentage of
stage carriage permits, as may be prescribed,
for persons belonging to economically weaker
sections of the community, or
(b) notwithstanding anything contained in the
proviso to sub-section (1), give preference,
in such manner as may be prescribed, to
applications for stage carriage permits from
such person
Explanation I-In this section and in sections 55,
63 and 68, a person shall be deemed to belong to
economically weaker section of the community, if and
only if, on the prescribed date:-
(a) the annual income of such person together
with the annual income, if any, of the
members of his family; or G
(b) the extent of land (whether in one class or
in different classes), held by such person
together with that, if any, held by the
members of his family, or
438
(c) the annual income and the extent of land
aforesaid, does, or do not exceed such limit
as may be prescribed.
Explanation II.- For the purposes of Explanation
I, “family”, in relation to an individual, means the
wife or husband, as the case may be, of such individual
and the minor children of such individual.
(1D) The number of permits reserved under sub-
section (1B) and clause (a) of sub-section (1C), shall
not exceed fifty per cent of the total number of stage
carriage permits granted during a calendar year.
(1E) In giving effect to the provisions of sub-
section (1B) and clause (a) of sub-section (1C) the
Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport
Authority may, if it considers necessary or expedient
so to do, group the various routes within its
jurisdiction.
(1F) Where any stage carriage permit is to be
granted from the quota reserved under sub-section (1B)
or clause(a) of sub-section (1C) to any cooperative
society registered or deemed to have been registered
under any enactment in force for the time being or any
firm to which the provisions of the Indian Partnership
Act, 1932 (9 of 1932), apply, no permit shall be
granted to such society or firm unless the members of
the co-operative society or the partners of the firm
belong to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes or
economically weaker sections of the community:
Provided that where the members of such co-
operative society or the partners of such firm are
partly from the Scheduled Castes, partly from the
Scheduled Tribes and partly from the economically
weaker sections of the community, or from any two of
these categories, any permit under this sub-section
shall be granted to such society or firm only from the
quota reserved for the category to which the largest
number of members of the co-operative society, or as
the case may be, partners of the firm belong:
439
Provided further that where no reservation has
been made in the State for economically weaker sections
of the community under clause (a) of sub-section (1C),
no permit under this sub-section shall be granted to a
co-operative society or firm unless the members of such
society or partners of such firm belong to the
Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes or partly to
the Scheduled Castes and partly to the Scheduled Tribes
and the permit to such society or firm shall be granted
only from the quota reserved for the Scheduled Castes
or the Scheduled Tribes according as to whether the
larger number of the members of the co-operative
society, or partners of the firm, belong to the
Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes.
(1G) The circumstances under which, the manner in
which, and the extent to which, reservation under sub-
section (1A) and clause (a) of sub-section (1C) may be
carried forward shall be such as may be prescribed.
(1H) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
section, an application for stage carriage permit from
a State transport undertaking for operating in any
inter-State route shall be given preference over all
other applications: Provided that the authority shall
not grant a permit under this sub-section unless it is
satisfied that the State transport undertaking would be
able to operate in the inter-State route without
detriment to its responsibility for providing efficient
and adequate road transport service in any notified
area or notified route as is referred to in sub section
(3) of section 68D where the undertaking operates the
service.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section,
‘inter-State route’ means any route Lying continuously
in two or more States.”
By the amendment of section 47 of the Act as stated
above, Parliament directed that the Regional Transport
Authority while considering applications for stage carriage
permits should, provided that other conditions being equal?
give preference to an application
440
from a person who has a valid licence for driving transport
vehicles over applications from individual owners.
Parliament also provided for reservation of certain
percentage of permits for state carriages in favour of
persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes in the same ratio as in the case of appointments made
by direct recruitment by a State Government to public
services in that State. Since it was considered necessary to
promote the well being of economically weaker sections of
the community, the State Government was empowered under
certain circumstances either to reserve certain percentage
of permits for stage carriages for persons belonging to
economically weaker sections of the community or to give
preference to them in the prescribed manner. It was however,
provided that the number of permits reserved under section
47(1B) and (1C)(a) of the Act should not exceed fifty per
cent of the total number of stage carriage permits granted
in a calendar year. It was also provided that if a State
Transport Undertaking applied for a stage carriage permit
operating in any inter-State route, such application should
be given preference over all other applications provided the
authority we satisfied that the Undertaking would be able to
operate in the inter-State route without detriment to its
responsibility for providing efficient and adequate road
transport service in any notified area or notified route as
is referred to in sub section (3) of section 68-D of the Act
where the Undertaking operated its service. By the very same
amending Act of 1978 Parliament also amended section 68 of
the Act by inserting clauses (ci), (cii), (ciii) and (civ)
enabling the State Governments to frame rules for
implementing subsections (1A) to (1H) of section 47 of the
Act. The above said amendments made to sections 47 and 68
came into force on January 16, 1979. It is conceded by the
learned Attorney General who appeared for the State
Government that these amendments which were made by
Parliament would have an over riding effect on section 43-A
of the Act introduced earlier by the State Legislature and
that section 43-A should be read subject to those later
amendments made by Parliament. Curiously the State
Government issued on January IO, 1981 and January 23, 1981
the impugned notifications which are set out at the
commencement of this judgment. By the first notification,
the State Government directed the Regional Transport
Authorities of the State of Uttar Pradesh to issue stage
carriage permits (except in respect of routes or areas for
which schemes had been published under section 68-C of the
Act) to all eligible applicants and that there should be no
upper limit to the number of stage carriages for which
permits might be
441
provided. By the second impugned notification dated January
23, 1981, the State Government directed the State Transport
Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities to have
regard only to matters referred to in clauses (a), (b), (d)
and (f) of sub-section (1) of section 47 of the Act and
should also take into consideration representation made by
the local authority or police authority within whose
jurisdiction any part of the proposed route or area lay. It
also directed that section 57 should be deemed to have been
complied with if the Transport Authority concerned intimated
the particulars of the applications to such local authority
and police authority for making representations, if any,
within a period of fifteen days from the date of despatch of
the intimation with the stipulation that if no
representation was received within the prescribed period of
time, it would be presumed that they had no representation
to make and considered any representation made by such local
authority and police authority;
A reading of these two notifications shows that the
State Government ignored, first, the legislative policy
underlying the Uttar Pradesh Act 15 of 1976 by which the new
sub-section (2) of section 43-A was enacted in substitution
of the former sub section (2) with retrospective effect. As
stated earlier, the State Legislature introduced the new
sub-section (2) of section 43-A after it realised the
mistake committed by the State Government in issuing the
notification in the year 1972 directing the issue of bus
permits liberally in favour of all eligible applicants which
had resulted in investment of unproductive capital
expenditure and under utilisation of capital and fuel and in
unreasonable competition which eventually eliminated small
operators from business. The State Government also ignored
the new policy governing the issue of permits introduced by
Parliament by amending section 47 of the Act. It was argued
on behalf of the State Government before the High Court that
the State Government d not contravened either section 43-A,
or the provisions of section 47 as amended in the year 1978.
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions observing that
the Statement of objects and Reasons attached to the Bill
which was ultimately enacted as the U.P. Act 15 of 1976
could not over-ride the clear provisions of section 43-A as
amended by that Act. The High Court upheld the notification
dated January 10, 1981 and further observed that since the
schemes of grant of free permits had been upheld by it ‘the
State Government had the power to prescribe the procedure to
be followed in
442
granting the same which has been provided for by the
Notification dated January 23, 1981′. Repelling the
contention of the writ petitioners that in the absence of
reservation of the required percentage of permits for
persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled
Tribes and weaker sections as provided in section 47 as
amended by Parliament in 1978, the grant of permits would be
vitiated, the High Court observed as follows:
“The question of reservation, however, arises only
in those cases where the seats or articles are limited
for distribution or allotment but where there is no
limit or no fixed number, the question of reserved on
will not arise. In that event, every body would be
served according to his need and aspiration. Hence, if
under section 43-A a direction has been made for grant
of stage carriage permit to all eligible applicants
without putting any fixed number for the vehicles to
ply, the interest of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes would be sufficiently safeguarded. A member of
the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as well as
economically weaker section of the community would as
much be entitled to get a permit to run his vehicle as
a member of any other community. It is where the seats
are limited that the legislature thought of making a
provision to reserve the grant of permits in their
favour to the extent of 25 per cent. The principle
behind reservation in the grant of stage carriage
permits employed by the Parliament appears to be the
same as in reserving appointment in the Government
service. If today government services are available in
abundance, the question of reservation would not arise.
It is only on account of the posts being limited that
the question of reservation has arisen. So we are not
able to agree with the submission of the petitioner’s
learned counsel that there is a conflict between
section 43-A, as inserted by the U.P. Legislature and
the amendments made in section 47 by Parliament in the
Motor Vehicles Act .”
The High Court further proceeded to observe that though
the tow impugned notifications did not follow the procedure
prescribed
443
by sub-section (2) of section 43-A as it is now in force in
the State of Uttar Pradesh, they could be sustained under
sub-sec. (1) of section 43-A which authorised the State
Government to issue such directions of a general character
as it might consider necessary or expedient in the public
interest in respect of any matter relating to road transport
to the State Transport Authority or to the Regional
Transport Authority and which required such authority to
give effect to any such directions. The High Court also
relied upon the decision of this Court in Hans Raj Kehar’s
case (supra) to hold that larger number of buses operating
on different routes would be for the convenience and benefit
of the travelling public.
We may here state that any observations made in Hans
Raj Rehar’s case (supra) would be inapplicable so far as
these cases presently before us are concerned. In that case
the Court was concerned with sub-section (2) of section 43-A
of the Act as it stood then which was a provision enacted by
the Legislature. That sub- section provided that without
prejudice to the generality of the power contained in
section 43-A(1) of the Act where the State Government was of
opinion that it was in public interest to grant stage
carriage permits (except) in respect of routes or areas for
which schemes have been published under section 68 (C) or
contract carriage permits or public carrier permits to all
eligible applicants it may issue appropriate directions as
stated therein. That sub-section contained a clear
legislative policy which considered that there could be no
public prejudice if all eligible applicants were granted
permits. Without saying anything more on the point, it may
be stated that whatever this Court may have observed while
considering that provision would not apply now as there is a
clear departure made by the Legislature from that policy
when it enacted the new sub-section (2) of section 43-A. In
the face of this amendment by which the former sub-section
(2) of section 43-A which specifically authorised he State
Government when it was satisfied that it was necessary to do
so in the public interest to issue directions to the
Transport Authorities to grant permits to all eligible
applicants was deliberately taken away by the State
Legislature, the High Court was wrong in holding that such
power was still available under sub-section (1) of section
43-A of the Act which was widely worded. The High Court shut
its eyes to the realities of the situation when it observed
that in
444
this case the contents of the Statement of objects and
Reasons were irrelevant as the provisions of section 43-A
(1) were very clear. Even without the aid of the Statement
of objects and Reasons it has to be held that by the
substitution of the former sub-section (2) by the new sub-
section (2) in section 43-A the Legislature clearly
expressed itself against the policy of granting permits to
all eligible applicants without any consideration to the
needs of any particular locality or route or to the
qualification of applicants. It is a well settled rule of
construction of statutes that whenever a court is called
upon to interpret an amended provision it has to bear in
mind the history of that provision, the mischief which the
Legislature attempted to remedy, the remedy provided by the
amendment and the reason for providing such remedy.
Therefore, after the amendment at any rate it has to be held
that sub-section (1) of section 43-A of the Act did not
comprehend within its scope the power to issue direction,
for issuing permits to all eligible applicants without any
sort of restriction relevant to the scheme of the Act. What
does section 43-A(1) after all say ? It says that the State
Government may issue such directions of a general character
as it may consider necessary in the public interest What is
the meaning of the term ‘public interest’ ? In the context
of the Act, it takes within its fold several factors such
as, the maximum number of permits that may be issued on a
route or in any area having regard to the needs and
convenience of the travelling public, the non-availability
of sufficient number of stage carriage services in other
routes or areas which may be in need of running of
additional services, the problems of law and order,
availability of fuel, problems arising out of atmospheric
pollution caused by a large number of motor vehicles
operating in any route or area, the condition of roads P and
bridges on the routes, uneconomic running of stage carriage
services leading to elimination of small operators and
employment of more capital than necessary in any sector
leading to starvation of capital investment in other sectors
etc. Public interest under the Act does not mean the
interest of the operators or of the passengers only. We nave
to bear in mind that like every other economic activity the
running of stage carriage service is an activity which
involves use of scarce or limited productive resources.
Motor Transport involves a huge capital investment on motor
vehicles, training of competent drivers and mechanics
establishment of workshops, construction of safe roads and
bridges, deployment of sufficient number of
445
policemen to preserve law and order and several other
matters. To say that larger the number of stage carriages in
any route or area more convenient it would be to the members
of the public is an over simplification of a problem with
myriad facts affecting the general public. If we run through
the various provisions of the Act it becomes clear how much
attention is given by it to various matters affecting public
interest. There are provisions relating to licensing of
drivers on the basis of their competence, licensing of
conductors, specifications to which the motor vehicles
should conform, coordination of road and rail transport,
prevention of deterioration of the road system, prevention
of uneconomic competition among motor vehicles, fixation of
reasonable fare, compliance by motor vehicles with the
prescribed time table, construction of bus stands with
necessary amenities, maintenance of standards of comfort and
cleanliness in the vehicles, development of inter-State
tourist traffic and several other matters with the object of
making available adequate and efficient transport facilities
to all parts of the country. Any direction given by the
State Government under section 43-A of the Act should
therefore, be in conformity with all matters regarding which
the statute has made provision. In this situation to say
that any number of permits can be issued to any eligible
operator without any upper limit is to overstep the limits
of delegation of statutory power and to make a mockery of an
important economic activity like the motor transport.
It is surprising that the High Court has reached the
conclusion that the preferences and reservations to be
observed while granting permits as stated in the proviso to
sub-section (1) to section 47 and in sub sections (1A) to
(1H) of section 47 have not been contravened as there is no
restriction on the number of permits to be issued. The
observation of the High Court that preferences have to be
shown and reservations have to be made only when there is
scarcity of permits and since there are no restrictions on
the number of permits to be issued there is no necessity to
make any such provision really shocks us. The High Court
erred in not noticing that it was dealing with a vital
economic activity which could be carried on at a huge cost
both to the operator and to the Government and that by
issuing the notification containing a direction to the
Transport Authorities to issue limitless number of permits,
the
446
State Government had attempted to circumvent sub-sections
(1) and (1A) to (1H) of section 47 of the Act. Preferences
and reservations have value only when there is a limit on
the number of permits to be issued and in the context of the
Act there should necessarily he a limit on the issue of
permits to operate motor vehicles in respect of any route or
area. By the method adopted by it the State Government has
virtually allowed the rich and well-to-do businessman who
can bear the loss for some time to introduce any number of
vehicles on a route or in any area until all the small
operators who also may take the permits to leave the field
owing to the inevitable loss that ensues by the operation of
an unlimited number of vehicles. The learned Attorney
General while conceding that the amendment made in 1978 to
section 47 of the Act should prevail contended that they had
not been violated by the impugned notifications. We do not
agree with the above submission. We are clearly of the view
that the State Government has transgressed the provisions
contained in sub-section (1) and sub-sections (1A) to (1H)
of section 47. It has failed to comply with the duty imposed
on it by those provisions.
We are of the view that the two notifications are
clearly outside the scope of the Act. The first notification
which directs that all eligible applicants shall be granted
permits and that there shall be no upper limit to the number
of permits to be issued for stage carriages and the second
notification which says that the Transport Authorities shall
have regard only to matters referred to in clauses (a), (b),
(d) and (f) of sub-section (1) of section 47 of the Act and
thereby precludes the Transport Authorities to take into
consideration matters contained in the proviso to section
47(1) and in sub-section (1A) to (1H) of section 47 of the
Act are ultra vires the Act and they are liable to he struck
down.
We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the
judgment of the High Court in each of these cases and
declare that the Notification No. 68 T/XXX-4-15 KM/79 dated
January 10, 1981 and the Notification No. 241 T/XXX-4-15-
P/79 dated January 23,1981 issued by the GoverDmeDt of the
State of Uttar Pradesh under section
447
43-A of the Act are ultra vires and, therefore, void and,
ineffective.
In the circumstances of the case. there will be no
order as to costs.
H.L.C. Appeals allowed.
448