{"id":168513,"date":"1983-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1983-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983"},"modified":"2018-12-13T15:14:25","modified_gmt":"2018-12-13T09:44:25","slug":"rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983","title":{"rendered":"Rameshwar Prasad Etc., Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 24 February, 1983"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rameshwar Prasad Etc., Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 24 February, 1983<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 383, \t\t 1983 SCR (2) 418<\/div>\n
Author: E Venkataramiah<\/div>\n
Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAMESHWAR PRASAD ETC., ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT24\/02\/1983\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nSEN, A.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1983 AIR  383\t\t  1983 SCR  (2) 418\n 1983 SCC  (2) 195\t  1983 SCALE  (1)152\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1992 SC 443\t (13,14)\n\n\nACT:\n     Motor Vehicles  Act, 1939\tas in  force in the State of\nUttar Pradesh-\tS. 43-A\t as amended  by U.P.  Act 15 of 1976\nread with  s. 47  as amended  by  Central  Act\t47  of\t1978\nInterpretation of-State\t Government cannot  issue directions\nunder sub-s.  (1) of  s. 43-A  for grant  of stage  carriage\npermits to an eligible applicants after amendment of s. 43-A\nby U.  P. Act 15 of 1976-While issuing directions under sub-\ns. (1)\tof s. 43-A State Government cannot ignore provisions\ncontained in sub-ss. (1) and (1A) to (1H) of s. 47.\n     Interpretation -  Rule of\tconstruction of\t an  amended\nprovision.\n     Words and\tPhrases -`Public  interest'-What it means in\nthe context of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     A 'stage  carriage' under\tthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1939\nmeans a\t motor vehicle\twhich carries  more than six persons\nfor hire  or  reward  at  separate  fares  paid\t by  or\t for\nindividual passengers  either for  the whole  journey or for\nstages of  the journey\tand for\t plying such a vehicle it is\nnecessary to  obtain a permit from the appropriate Transport\nAuthority. While  considering  an  application\tfor  such  a\npermit, the  Transport Authority must, under cls. (a) to (f)\nof sub-s.  (1) of  s. 47, have regard to the interest of the\npublic generally,  the\tadvantages  to\tthe  public  of\t the\nservice to  be provided,  the adequacy\tof  other  passenger\ntransport  services  operating\tbetween\t the  places  to  be\nserved, the  operation by  the applicant  of other transport\nservices,  etc.,   and\talso  take  into  consideration\t the\nrepresentations made  by local\tor police authorities and by\npersons already\t providing passenger transport facilities by\nany means  along or  near the  proposed route  or area.\t The\nState Government  may, under  sub-s. (1)  of s.\t 43,  having\nregard to  the advantages  offered  to\tthe  public  by\t the\ndevelopment  of\t  motor\t transport,   the  desirability\t  of\npreventing  uneconomic\tcompetition  among  motor  vehicles,\netc.,  issue   appropriate  directions\t to  the   Transport\nAuthority\n     The subject  matter of  regulation\t of  motor  vehicles\nbeing within  the scope\t of entry 35 of the Concurrent List,\nthe Act in its application to tho State of Uttar Pradesh was\namended in  1972 by the U.P. Legislature by the introduction\nof s.  43-A which  was a  new provision.  While\t sub-s.\t (1)\nthereof conferred  power on  the State\tGovernment to  issue\ndirections of  a general  character in\tpublic\tinterest  in\nrespect of any matter relating to road transport, sub-s.\n419\n(2) specifically  conferred the\t power to  issue  directions\nregarding grant\t of stage  carriage permits  to all eligible\napplicants if  the State  Government was of the opinion that\nit was\tin the public interest to do so. Further, under sub-\ns. (2)\tof s. 43-A, the provisions of s. 47 stood amended to\nthe effect that while considering an application for permit,\nit was\tno longer  necessary for  the Transport Authority to\nhave regard  to the  adequacy of  other passenger  transport\nservices operating between the places to be served or to the\noperation by  the applicant of other transport services; nor\nwas  the   Transport  Authority\t  required  to\t look\tinto\nrepresentations made  by any  one other than local or police\nauthorities. The  State Government,  acting under  s.  43-A,\nissued directions in March, 1972 for grant of permits to all\neligible applicants without any restriction as to the number\nof permits to be issued on any route. The validity of s. 43-\nA and  the directions  issued thereunder  were upheld by the\nCourt in Hans Raj Kehar & Ors v. Srate of UP. & Ors [1975] 1\nS.C.R. 9l6.  But, within  a short time, the State Government\nrealised the  necessity of  reviewing the  policy of issuing\npermits to  all eligible applicants and amended s. 43-A with\nretrospective effect  by the  Uttar Pradesh  Act 15 of 1976.\nWhile sub  s. (1)  was retained\t as  such,  sub-s.  (2)\t was\nsubstituted by an entirely new sub-section. The Statement of\nobjects and Reasons appended to the Amending Act stated that\nit had become necessary to reconsider the policy of granting\nbus permits  liberally with  a view to checking unproductive\ncapital expenditure  and unnecessary  consumption  of  fuel,\npreventing elimination\tof small  operators as a consequence\nof unreasonable\t competition, etc. and authorising the State\nGovernment to  issue necessary\tdirections from time to time\nin regard  to the  number of  permits that may be granted in\nrespect of  any route or area, the preference to be given to\nspecifically deserving categories, etc. The State Government\nthereafter issued directions to the Transport Authorities to\nensure that  the operation  of the  total  number  of  stage\ncarriages on any route was economically viable.\n     Section 47\t was amended  by the Central Act 47 of 1978.\nThe proviso  to sub-s. (1) of s. 47 was amended by providing\nthat in\t addition to  a registered  cooperative society,  an\napplication for\t a stage  carriage permit  from a person who\nhas a  valid licence for driving transport vehicles shall he\ngiven preference  over applications  from individual owners.\nParliament also introduced new sub-ss. (1A) to (1H) in s. 47\nproviding for  reservation of  certain percentage  of  stage\ncarriage permits  for the  Scheduled Castes  and Tribes\t and\nweaker sections\t of the\t community and\tempowered the  State\nGovernment to  frame rules  for implementing sub-ss. (1A) to\n(1H) of\t s 47.\tThese amendments  came into force on January\n16, 1979.\n     On January\t 10, 1981  the\tState  Government  issued  a\nnotification directing\tthe Transport  Authorities to  issue\nstage  carriage\t permits  to  all  eligible  applicants\t and\nspecifying that there should be no upper limit to the number\nof stage  carriages for\t which permits\tmight be granted. On\nJanuary 23,  1981, by another notification, of the Transport\nAuthorities were  directed to  have regard  only to  matters\nreferred to  in cls.  (a), (b), (d) and (f) of sub-s. (l) of\ns. 47 and to take into consideration representations made by\nlocal or  police authorities only. Tho appellants challenged\nthe notifications under Article 226.\n420\n     The High  Court dismissed\tthe petitions  repelling the\ncontention  that  in  the  absence  of\treservation  of\t the\nrequired percentage  of permits for persons belonging to the\nScheduled Castes,  the Scheduled  Tribes and weaker sections\nas provided in s. 47 the grant of permits would be vitiated.\nAccording to  the High\tCourt the  question  of\t reservation\nwould arise  only in those cases where the seats or articles\nare limited for distribution or allotment but where there is\nno limit  or no\t fixed number,\tthe question  of reservation\nwould not  arise. The  High Court said that the Statement of\nobjects and  Reasons appended to the Amending Act 15 of 1976\ncannot override\t the clear  provisions of s. 43-A as amended\nby  that   Act\tand   held  that  though  the  two  impugned\nnotifications did  not follow  the procedure  prescribed  by\nsub-s. (2)  of s. 43-A, they could be sustained under sub-s.\n(1) of s.43-A. It relied on the decision in Hans Raj Kehar's\ncase to\t hold  that  large  number  of\tbuses  operating  on\ndifferent routes would be for the convenience and benefit of\nthe travelling public.\n     Allowing the appeals,\n^\n     HELD: Whenever  a court  is called upon to interpret an\namended provision  it has to bear in mind the history of the\nprovision, the\tmischief which\tthe legislature attempted to\nremedy, the  remedy provided by the amendment and the reason\nfor providing  such remedy.  Section 43-A  of the  Act as in\nforce in the State of U.P. was amended by the U.P. Act 15 of\n1976. By  the substitution  of the  former sub-s. (2) by the\nnew sub-s  (2) in  s. 43-A the legislature clearly expressed\nitself\tagainst\t the  policy  of  granting  permits  to\t all\neligible applicants  without any  consideration to the needs\nof any particular locality or route or to the qualifications\nof applicants.\tAfter the  amendment, sub-s.  (1) of S. 43-A\ndid not\t comprehend within  its scope  the  power  to  issue\ndirections for\tissuing permits\t to all\t eligible applicants\nwithout any  sort of  restriction relevant  to the scheme of\nthe Act.  The sub-section  states that\tthe State Government\nmay issue  such directions  of a general character as it may\nconsider necessary in the public interest. 'Public interest'\nunder the  Act does  not mean the interests of the operators\nor of  the passengers only. It takes within its fold several\nfactors such  as, the  maximum number of permits that may be\nIssued on  a route or in any area having regard to the needs\nand  convenience   of  the   travelling\t public,   the\tnon-\navailability of\t sufficient number  of\tstage  carriages  in\nother routes  or areas\twhich may  be in  need of running of\nadditional  services,\tthe  problems\tof  law\t and  order,\navailability of\t fuel, etc. To say that larger the number of\nstage carriages\t in any\t route or  area more  convenient  it\nwould  be   to\tthe  members  of  the  public  is  an  over-\nsimplification of a problem with myriad facets affecting the\ngeneral public.\t The Act itself contains provisions relating\nto licensing  of drivers  and conductors,  specifications of\nmotor vehicles,\t co-ordination of  road and  rail transport,\nprevention of  deterioration of\t road system,  prevention of\nUneconomic  competition\t  among\t motor\tvehicles,  etc.\t Any\ndirection given\t by  the  State\t Government  under  s.\t43-A\nshould,\t therefore,   be  in  conformity  with\tall  matters\nregarding which\t the statute  has made\tprovision.  In\tthis\nsituation to say that any number of permits can be issued to\nany eligible operator without any upper limit is to overstep\nthe limits  of delegation  of statutory power. [444 A-H; 445\nA-E]\n     In the instant case, a reading of the two notifications\nshows that  the State  Government  ignored  the\t legislative\npolicy underlying the U.P. Act 15 of\n421\n1976 by\t which the  new sub-s. (2) of s. 43-A was enacted in\nsubstitution of\t the former  sub-s. (2)\t with  retrospective\neffect. The  new sub-s.\t (2) was  introduced  by  the  State\nlegislature after  it had  realised the mistake committed by\nthe State Government in issuing the notification in the year\n1972 directing\tthe issue of bus permits liberally in favour\nof all\teligible applicants which had resulted in investment\nof unproductive capital expenditure and under-utilisation of\ncapital and  fuel  and\tin  unreasonable  competition  which\neventually eliminated  small operators\tfrom business.\t[441\nD-F]\n     (ii) The  State Government\t also ignored the new policy\ngoverning the  issue of\t permits introduced by Parliament by\namending s.  47 of  the Act in 1978. The High Court erred in\nnot noticing  that by  issuing the notification containing a\ndirection to  the Transport  Authorities to  issue limitless\nnumber of  permits, the\t State Government  had attempted  to\ncircumvent sub-ss.  (1) and  (IA) to  (IH) of  a s.  47. The\nobservation of\tthe High  Court that  preferences have to be\nshown and  reservations have  to be  made only when there is\nscarcity of  permits and since there were no restrictions on\nthe number of permits to be issued there was no necessity to\nmake  any   such  provision   is  shocking.  Preference\t and\nreservations have  value only  when there  is a limit on the\nnumber of permits to be issued and in the context of the Act\nthere should  necessarily be a limit on the issue of permits\nto operate  motor vehicles  in respect of any route or area.\nBy the\tD method  adopted by  it the  State  Government\t has\nvirtually allowed  the rich and well-to-do businessman - who\ncan bear  the loss  for some time to introduce any number of\nvehicles on  a route  or in  any area  until all  the  small\noperators who  also may\t take the permits to leave the field\nowing to the inevitable loss that ensues by the operation of\nan unlimited  number of\t vehicles. The\ttwo notifications in\nquestion are clearly outside the scope of the Act. [445 F-H;\n446 A-E]\n     (iii) The\tobservations in\t Hans Raj  Kehar's case\t are\ninapplicable to\t the present  cases. In\t that case the Court\nwas concerned  with sub-s.  (2) of s. 43-A as it stood then.\nAt that\t time, the sub-section contained a clear legislative\npolicy which  considered  that\tthere  could  be  no  public\nprejudice if  all eligible  applicants were granted permits.\nWhatever the  Court may have observed while considering that\nprovision would\t not apply now as There is a clear departure\nmade by the legislature from that policy when it enacted the\nnew sub-s.  (2) of s. 43-A. In the face of this amendment by\nwhich the  former sub-s.  (2) of  s.43-A which\tspecifically\nauthorised the\tState Government  when it was satisfied that\nit was\tnecessary to  do so  in the public interest to issue\ndirections to  the Transport Authorities to grant permits to\nall eligible  applicants was  deliberately taken away by the\nState legislature,  the High Court was wrong in holding that\nsuch power  was still  available under sub-s. (1) of s. 43-A\nwhich was widely worded. [443 C-H]\n     Hans Raj  Kehar & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.<\/a> [1975] 2\nS.C.R. 916, held inapplicable.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1269-
\n71 of 1982.\n<\/p>\n
422<\/span><\/p>\n
     Appeals by\t Special leave\tfrom the  Judgment and order
\ndated 23rd  the March,\t1982 of\t the Allahabad High Court in
\nCivil Miscellaneous  Writ Petition  Nos. 2328, 2424 and 1998
\nof 1981.\n<\/p>\n
     Shanti Bhusan and R.R. Jain for the Appellants.
\n     Mrs. Shobha Dikshit for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     VENKATARAMIAH, J.\tIn these  appeals by  special  leave
\nfiled against  the common  judgment dated  March 23, 1982 of
\nthe Allahabad  High Court, the validity of two Notifications
\nissued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under section 43-A
\nof  the\t  Motor\t Vehicles   Act,  1939\t (Act  IV  of  1939)
\n(hereinafter referred  to as  ‘the Act’)  as in force in the
\nState of  Uttar Pradesh\t arises for  consideration. The\t two
\nimpugned Notifications are reproduced below:\n<\/p>\n
     I.\t  “Notification
\n\t  No. 68 T\/XXX-4-15-KM\/79
\n\t  Dated: Lucknow: January 10, 1981.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Whereas, the\tGovernment of  Uttar Pradesh  is  of
\n     opinion that  it is  in the  public interest  to  grant
\n     stage carriage  permits (except in respect of routes or
\n     areas for\twhich  schemes\thave  been  published  under
\n     section 68-C  of the  Motor Vehicles  Act, 1939) to all
\n     eligible applicants:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Now. therefore,  in exercise\tof the\tpowers under
\n     section 43.A  of the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1939,\t the
\n     Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to direct that the
\n     stage carriage  permits (except in respect of routes or
\n     areas for\twhich  schemes\thave  been  published  under
\n     section 68-C  of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) shall be
\n     granted according\tto the\tprovisions of the Act to all
\n     eligible applicants  and there  shall be no upper limit
\n     to the  number of stage carriages for which permits may
\n     be granted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\tBy order
\n\t\t\t\t\t      Karnail Singh,
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  Sachiv
\n423<\/span>
\n     II.  Notification
\n\t  No. 241 T\/XXX-4-15-P\/79
\n\t  Dated: January 23, 1981
\n     The Governor  being satisfied  that it  is expedient in
\n     the public\t interest so  to do, is pleased to direct in
\n     exercise of  the powers under section 43-A of the Motor
\n     Vehicles Act,  1939 (Act  No. 4  of  1939)\t that  while
\n     considering applications  for stage  carriage  permits,
\n     the State Transport Authority or a Regional Authority:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)   shall have  regard only to matters referred to in
\n\t  clauses (a),\t(b), (d)  and (f) of sub-section (1)
\n\t  of section  47 of the said Act and shall also take
\n\t  into consideration  representations  made  by\t the
\n\t  local authority  or police  authority within whose
\n\t  jurisdiction any  part of  the proposed  route  or
\n\t  area lies; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) shall be deemed to have made sufficient compliance
\n\t  of the  provisions of\t section 57 of the said Act,
\n\t  if   it   intimates\tthe   particulars   of\t the
\n\t  applications to  such local  authority and  police
\n\t  authority  for  making  representations,  if\tany,
\n\t  within a  period of  fifteen days from the date of
\n\t  despatch of  the intimation  with the\t stipulation
\n\t  that if  no representation is received with in the
\n\t  prescribed period  of time,  it shall\t be presumed
\n\t  that they  have no representation to make, and has
\n\t  considered any  representation made  by such local
\n\t  authority and police authority.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\tBy order
\n\t\t\t\t\t      Karnail Singh,
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t Sachiv.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  appellants   who  are\t  stage\t carriage  operators
\nchallenged The\tvalidity of  the above\tNotifications in the
\nwrit petitions\tfiled by  them\tunder  Article\t226  of\t the
\nConstitution before  the High Court inter alia on the ground
\nthat they  were ultra  vires the provisions of the Act under
\nwhich they  had been  issued. The  High Court  dismissed the
\nwrit petitions after negativing the contentions of the
\n424<\/span>
\nappellants. Aggrieved  by the decision of the High Court the
\nappellants have\t preferred these appeals by special leave as
\nstated above.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  necessary at  this stage to give a resume of the
\nrelevant  statutory   provisions  to  understand  the  rival
\ncontentions of the parties. On finding that the Indian Motor
\nVehicles Act,  1914 which Was brought into force at an early
\nstage of  development of  motor transport  was inadequate to
\nmeet the  new situation\t created  by  the  growth  of  motor
\ntransport by  the year\t1939, the Central Legislature passed
\nthe Act\t for the  purpose of regulating motor traffic in the
\ninterests alike\t of the safety and convenience of the public
\nand of the development of a coordinated system of transport.
\nThe Act\t underwent  major  alterations\tin  1956  and  1969.
\nBroadly the  Act provided  inter alia  for  registration  of
\nmotor vehicles,\t licensing of  drivers and conductors, grant
\nof  permits  to\t ply  public  service  vehicles\t and  public
\ncarriers, operation  of\t road  transport  service  by  State
\ntransport undertakings\tin any\tarea or\t on any route to the
\nexclusion,   complete\tor   partial   of   other   persons,
\nconstruction, equipment\t and maintenance  of motor vehicles,
\ncontrol of  traffic, insurance\tof  motor  vehicles  against
\nthird party risks and offences, penalties and procedure. The
\nState Governments  were entrusted  with the  duty of framing
\nrules on  various matters  connected with  the topics  dealt
\nwith by the Act. The subject of regulation of motor vehicles
\nbeing within  the scope of Entry 35 – mechanically propelled
\nvehicles including  the principles  on which  taxes on\tsuch
\nvehicles are  to  be  levied-in\t List  III  of\tthe  Seventh
\nSchedule to  the Constitution,\tvarious amendments were made
\nfrom time  to time  by several\tState Legislatures  with the
\nassent of  the\tPresident  of  India  either  adding  to  or
\nmodifying the  provisions of  the Act. Chapter IV of the Act
\nwhich includes\tsection 42 to section 68 contains provisions
\npertaining to  the control  of motor vehicles. Section 42 of
\nthe Act\t provides that no owner of a transport vehicle shall
\nr use  or permit  the use of the vehicle in any public place
\nwhether\t or  not  such\tvehicle\t is  actually  carrying\t any
\npassenger or goods save in accordance with the conditions of
\na permit  granted or  countersigned by\ta Regional  or State
\nTransport Authority or the Commission authorising the use of
\nthe vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle
\nis being  used. A  ‘transport vehicle’ is defined in section
\n2(33) of  the Act  as a\t public service\t vehicle or  a goods
\nvehicle. A  ‘public service  vehicle’ is  defined in section
\n2(25) of  the Act as any motor vehicle used or adapted to be
\nused for the carriage
\n425<\/span>
\nof passengers  for hire or reward, and includes a motor cab,
\ncontract carriage  and stage  carriage. Section 2(29) of the
\nAct states  that a  ‘stage carriage’  means a  motor vehicle
\ncarrying or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding
\nthe driver  which carries  passengers for  hire or reward at
\nseparate fares\tpaid by or for individual passengers, either
\nfor the\t whole journey or for stages of the journey. Section
\n45(1) of  the Act  prescribes that  every application  for a
\npermit shall  be made to the Regional Transport Authority of
\nthe region  in which  it is  proposed to  use the vehicle or
\nvehicles. When\tthe vehicle  is to  be used  in two  or more
\nregions,  the  applications  for  permits  may\tbe  made  as
\nprovided in  the provisos  to section 45(1) or section 45(2)
\nof the\tAct, as\t the case  may be.  The constitution  of the
\nRegional  Transport  Authorities  and  the  State  Transport
\nAuthorities is\tdealt with by section 44 of the Act. A State
\nTransport Authority  or a Regional Transport Authority shall
\nconsist of  a Chairman\twho has\t had judicial  experience or
\nexperience as an appellate or revisional authority under any
\nlaw relating  to land  revenue and  in the  case of  a State
\nTransport Authority, such other officials and non-officials,
\nnot being  less than  two, and,\t in  the  case\tof  Regional
\nTransport Authority such other persons (whether officials or
\nnot) not  being less  than two,\t as the State Government may
\nthink fit  to appoint.\tAn application\tfor a stage carriage
\npermit shall  have to  contain the  particulars mentioned in
\nsection 46  of the  Act. Prior\tto its\tamendment  in  1978,
\nsection 47 as amended by Act 100 of 1956 read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “47. Procedure  of Regional Transport Authority in
\n     considering application for stage carriage permits.-(1)
\n     A Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an
\n     application for a stage carriage permit. have regard to
\n     the P following matters, namely:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  the interest of the public generally;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)   the advantages to the public of the service to be
\n\t  provided, including  the saving  of time likely to
\n\t  be effected  thereby and  any convenience  arising
\n\t  from journeys not being broken;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  the adequacy of other passenger transport services
\n\t  operating or likely to operate in the near future,
\n426<\/span>
\n\t  whether by road or other means, between the places
\n\t  to be served.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)     the  benefit  to  any  particular\tlocality  or
\n\t  localities likely to be afforded by the service;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (e)   the operation by the applicant of other transport
\n\t  services, including  those  in  respect  of  which
\n\t  applications from him for permits are pending;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (f)   the\tcondition  of  the  roads  included  in\t the
\n\t  proposed route or area;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  and  shall   also  take   into  consideration\t any
\n\t  representations made\tby persons already providing
\n\t  passenger transport  facilities by any means along
\n\t  or near  the proposed\t route or  area, or  by\t any
\n\t  association representing persons interested in the
\n\t  provision of road trans port facilities recognised
\n\t  in this  behalf by the State Government, or by any
\n\t  local authority  or police  authority within whose
\n\t  jurisdiction any  part of  the proposed  route  or
\n\t  area lies:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that\t other conditions  being  equal,  an
\n     application  for\ta  stage   carriage  permit  from  a
\n     cooperative society  registered or\t deemed to have been
\n     registered under  any enactment  in force\tfor the time
\n     being shall, as far as may be, be given preference over
\n     applications from individual owners.
\n\t  (2) A Regional Transport Authority shall refuse to
\n     grant a  stage carriage  permit if\t it appears from any
\n     timetable furnished  that the  provisions of  this\t Act
\n     relating to  the speed  at which vehicles may be driven
\n     are likely to be contravened:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that\t before such  refusal an opportunity
\n     shall be given to the applicant to amend the time-table
\n     so as to conform to the said provisions.
\n\t  (3) A\t Regional Transport  Authority\tmay,  having
\n     regard to\tthe matters  mentioned in  sub-section\t(1),
\n     limit the
\n427<\/span>
\n     number of stage carriages generally or of any specified
\n     type for which stage carriage permits may be granted in
\n     the region or on any specified area or on any specified
\n     route within the region.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The procedure  in applying\t for and granting permits is
\nset out\t in section  57 of  the Act.  Section 48  of the Act
\nprovides that  subject to  section 47,\ta Regional Transport
\nAuthority may,\ton an  application made\t to it under section
\n46, grant  a stage  carriage permit  in accordance  with the
\napplication or\twith such  modifications as  it deems fit or
\nrefuse to  grant such  a permit.  If the  Regional Transport
\nAuthority decides  to grant  a stage carriage permit, it may
\nattach to  it all  or any  of the  conditions  mentioned  in
\nsection 48(3)  of the Act. The proceedings before a Regional
\nTransport Authority  are quasi\tjudicial in character. While
\nconsidering  the  application  for  the\t grant\tof  a  stage
\ncarriage permit\t the Regional  Transport  Authority  has  to
\nconsider all  representations referred\tto in section 57(3).
\nSub-section (5)\t of section 57 of the Act provides that when
\nany representation such as is referred to in sub-section (3)
\nthereof is  made, the  Regional\t Transport  Authority  shall
\ndispose of  the application at a public hearing at which the
\napplicant and  the persons  making the representations shall
\nhave an\t opportunity of being heard either in person or by a
\nduly authorised\t representative. Representations can be made
\namong others  by  any  person  who  is\tproviding  transport
\nfacilities on the route or in the area, any rival applicant,
\npolice authorities  and local  authorities. Any\t person\t who
\nsatisfies the  qualifications mentioned in section 64 of the
\nAct and\t who is\t aggrieved by the resolution of the Regional
\nTransport Authority  may file  an appeal  before  the  State
\nTransport P  Appellate Tribunal\t which should  consist of  a
\nwholetime judicial  officer not below the rank of a District
\nJudge. An  order of  a Regional\t Transport Authority or of a
\nState Transport\t Authority against  which no  appeal can  be
\nfiled  is   subject  to\t revision  by  the  State  Transport
\nAppellate Tribunal under section 64-A of the Act. Subsection
\n(1) of\tsection 43  of the  Act which  confers power  on the
\nState Government to control transport reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “43.\tPower\tto  State   Government\tto   control
\n     transport-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (1) A State Government having regard to:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
428<\/span><\/p>\n
     (a)   the advantages  offered to  the public, trade and
\n\t  industry by the development of motor transport,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)   the desirability  of coordinating  road and\trail
\n\t  trans port.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)   the desirability  of preventing the deterioration
\n\t  of the road system, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)     the  desirability\t of  preventing\t  uneconomic
\n\t  competition among  motor vehicles,  may, from time
\n\t  to time,  by notification in the official Gazette,
\n\t  issue directions to the State Transport Authority:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i)\tregarding the  fixing of  fares and freights
\n\t       (including the maximum and minimum in respect
\n\t       thereof)\t for   stage   carriages,   contract
\n\t       carriages and public carriers;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) regarding  the  prohibition  or\trestriction,
\n\t       subject\tto   such  conditions\tas  may\t  be
\n\t       specified in the directions, of the conveying
\n\t       of long\tdistance goods traffic generally, or
\n\t       of specified  classes of goods, by private or
\n\t       public carriers,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (iii)\t regarding   the  grant\t  of   permits\t for
\n\t       alternative routes  or areas,  to persons  In
\n\t       whose cases  the\t existing  permits  are\t not
\n\t       renewed in  pursuance of\t the  provisions  of
\n\t       sub-section (1-D)  of section  68-F,  or\t are
\n\t       cancelled or  the terms\tthereof are modified
\n\t       in exercise of the powers conferred by clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (b) or  clause  (c)  of\tsub-section  (2)  of
\n\t       section 68-F;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (iv) regarding  any other  matter which may appear
\n\t       to  the\t State\t Government   necessary\t  or
\n\t       expedient for  giving effect to any agreement
\n\t       entered into  with the  Central Government or
\n\t       any other  State Government or the Government
\n\t       of  any\t other\tcountry\t  relating  to\t the
\n\t       regulation of motor transport generally,
\n429<\/span>
\n\t       and in  particular to its coordination with A
\n\t       other means of transport and the conveying of
\n\t       long distance goods traffic:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that no such notification shall be issued
\n     unless a  draft of the proposed directions is published
\n     in the official Gazette specifying therein a date being
\n     not less  than one\t month after such publication, on or
\n     after which  the draft will be taken into consideration
\n     and any  objection or  suggestion which may be received
\n     has,  in\tconsultation  with   the   State   Transport
\n     Authority,\t  been\t  considered   after\tgiving\t the
\n     representatives   of    the   interests   affected\t  an
\n     opportunity of being heard.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the  year 1972,\t however, the Act was amended by the
\nLegislature of\tthe State of Uttar Pradesh introducing a new
\nsection being  section 43-A  by\t the  Motor  Vehicles  (U.P.
\nAmendment) Act,\t 1972 with  the assent of the President. The
\nmaterial part  of section 43-A which was newly introduced by
\nthe said amending U.P. Act  read as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “43-A. (1)  The State\t Government may\t issue\tsuch
\n     directions of  a general  character as  it may consider
\n     necessary\tor  expedient  in  the\tpublic\tinterest  in
\n     respect of any matter relating to road transport to the
\n     State Transport  Authority or to any Regional Transport
\n     Authority, and  such  Transport  Authority\t shall\tgive
\n     effect to all such directions.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (2) Without  prejudice to  the generality  of\t the
\n     fore going\t power, where  the State  Government  is  of
\n     opinion that  it is  in the  public interest  to  grant
\n     stage carriage  permits (except in respect of routes or
\n     areas for\twhich  schemes\thave  been  published  under
\n     section 68(C)  or contract\t carriage permits  or public
\n     carrier permits  to all  eligible applicants, it may by
\n     notification in  the Gazette  issue a  direction accor-
\n     dingly, and thereupon all transport authorities as well
\n     as the  State Transport  Appellate Tribunal constituted
\n     under section  64 shall  proceed to consider and decide
\n     all applications, appeals and. revisions in that behalf
\n     (including\t any   pending\tapplications,\tappeals\t and
\n     revisions) as if-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
430<\/span><\/p>\n
     (a)  in section 47-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i)\t for  sub-section  (1)\tthe  following\tsub-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       sections were substituted:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii)\tA  Regional  Transport\tAuthority  shall  in
\n\t       considering  an\t application  for   a  stage
\n\t       carriage permit, have regard to the following
\n\t       matters, namely-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (a)  the interest of the public generally;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (b)   the advantage  to\tthe  public  of\t the
\n\t\t    service to\tbe  provided  including\t the
\n\t\t    saving of  time likely  to\tbe  effected
\n\t\t    thereby and any convenience arising from
\n\t\t    journeys not being broken;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (c)   the benefit  to any particular locality
\n\t\t    or localities  likely to  be afforded by
\n\t\t    the service;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  and  shall   also  take   into  consideration\t any
\n\t  representation made  by  any\tlocal  authority  or
\n\t  police authority  within  whose  jurisdiction\t any
\n\t  part of the proposed route or area lies; and
\n\t  sub-section (3) were omitted
\n     The above\tU.P. Act  was preceded by the U.P. Ordinance
\nwhich contained\t more  or  less\t the  same  provisions.\t The
\nordinance was  substituted by  the said U.P. Act. The object
\nof enacting  section 43-A  of the  Act was  set out  in\t the
\nStatement of  objects and  Reasons attached  to the relevant
\nU.P. Bill which read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Objects and\tReasons-operators engage in the race
\n     for securing  permits for\tstage carriage on non-nation
\n     alised routes.  Due to  limitation\t on  the  number  of
\n     permits this  business is\tcontrolled by a few persons.
\n     Complaints in  this regard\t are made  every other\tday.
\n     Therefore, with  a view  to making\t it easier to secure
\n     permits in\t respect of  non nationalised  routes and to
\n     introducing simplicity  in procedure  and to  providing
\n     greater employment and securing
\n431<\/span>
\n     equitable\tdistribution   thereof\tit   was  considered
\n     necessary to  amend sections  47, SO,  SS and 64 of the
\n     Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, suitably. Accordingly, in the
\n     public interest  and with the aforesaid object in view,
\n     the Motor Vehicles (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) ordinance,
\n     1972, was\tpromulgated.  This  Bill  is  introduced  to
\n     replace the said ordinance.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Pursuant to  the power  conferred on it by section 43-A
\nof the\tAct, the  Government of\t the State  of Uttar Pradesh
\nissued the  following directions  on March  30,\t 1972  by  a
\nNotification, the relevant part of which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Whereas the\tState Government  is of opinion that
\n     it is  in the  public interest  to grant stage carriage
\n     permits (except in respect of routes or areas for which
\n     schemes have  been published  under section 68-C of the
\n     Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) contract carriage permits and
\n     public carrier permits to all eligible applicants.
\n\t  Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred
\n     by section\t 43-A of  the Motor  Vehicles Act,  1939 the
\n     Governor is  pleased  to  direct  that  stage  carriage
\n     permits  (except\tin  respect   of  routes   or  areas
\n     aforesaid) contract carriage permits and public carrier
\n     permits shall be granted according to the provisions of
\n     the said Act to all eligible applicants.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The validity  of section  43-A of the Act introduced by
\nthe U.\tP. Legislature and of the Notification dated March P
\n30, 1972 issued by the Government of Uttar. Pradesh pursuant
\nto that\t section was questioned in some writ petitions filed
\nby some\t motor operators  in the  High Court  of  Allahabad.
\nThose petitions\t were dismissed. On appeal this Court upheld
\nthe validity  of section  43-A of  the Act  as well  as\t the
\nNotification by its judgment in Hans Raj Kehar & Ors. v. The
\nState of  U.P. &  Ors.<\/a>(1) which was delivered on December 4,
\n1974. Within about three and half years from the date of the
\nabove said  notification the  Government  of  Uttar  Pradesh
\nrealised that  it was necessary to review the whole question
\nof issuing permits to all eligible applicants. Accor-\n<\/p>\n
432<\/span><\/p>\n
dingly\tthe   State  Government\t issued\t a  Notification  on
\nSeptember 24, 1975 which ran as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Whereas, in\texercise of  the power\tconferred by
\n     Section 43-A  of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the State
\n     Government was  by notification No. 1188-T\/XXX-4, dated
\n     March 30,\t1972, pleased  to direct that stage carriage
\n     permits  (except\tin  respect   of  routes   or  areas
\n     aforesaid) contract carriage permits and public carrier
\n     permits shall be granted according to the provisions of
\n     the said Act to all eligible applicants:
\n\t  And whereas,\ton further  consideration the  State
\n     Government is  of opinion\tthat the  policy of granting
\n     such permits to all eligible applicants requires review
\n     with a view to:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)   Preventing  unproductive  expenditure  and  under
\n\t  utilization of capital and fuel.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  Preventing elimination of small operators due
\n\t       to  unfair  competition\tresulting  from\t the
\n\t       issue of\t more permits  than required  for  a
\n\t       route.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)\tFacilitating long term planning of passenger
\n\t       road transport services.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  And whereas,\tsuch review  is likely\tto take some
\n     time and  in the  mean time it is necessary to stay the
\n     disposal of  all pending  applications for\t permits  or
\n     entertainment of fresh applications.
\n\t  Now,\ttherefore,   in\t exercise   of\tthe   powers
\n     conferred\tby  the\t said  Section\t43-A  of  the  Motor
\n     Vehicles Act,  1939, read\twith Section  21 of the U.P.
\n     General Clauses  Act, 1904,  the Governor is pleased to
\n     direct that:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  1. The  Notification No.  1198 T\/XXX-4, dated 30th
\n     March, 1972 be and is hereby rescinded with immediate
\n     effect.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
433<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  2. The  consideration of  applications  for  stage
\n     carriage permits  pending with  any Transport Authority
\n     shall stand  postponed  until  further  directions\t are
\n     issued in this behalf by the State Government.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  3. No fresh applications for such permits shall be
\n     entertained until further directions are issued in this
\n     behalf by the State Government.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The above\tNotification shows  that as a consequence of
\nthe policy  of granting\t permits to all eligible applicants,
\nnecessity  had\tarisen\tto  take  measures  (i)\t to  prevent
\nunproductive expenditure  and under  utilisation of  capital
\nand fuel, (ii) to prevent elimination of small operators due
\nto unfair  competition resulting  from\tthe  issue  of\tmore
\npermits than  required for a route; and (iii) to embark upon
\nlong term planning of passenger road transport services.\n<\/p>\n
     It is stated that by U.P. Ordinance 35 of 1975, Section
\n43-A was  amended. This\t ordinance was replaced by the Uttar
\nPradesh Act  15 of  1976. By  this Act,\t sub-section (2)  of
\nsection 43-A.  which had  been added in 1972 was substituted
\nwith retrospective  effect from\t the date  of  its  original
\nenactment. Section 43-A after it was amended by the U.P. Act
\n15 of 1976 read as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “43-A.  Power\t  of  State   Government  to   issue
\n     directions\t to   Transport\t Authorities-(1)  The  State
\n     Government may  issue  such  directions  of  a  general
\n     character as  it may consider necessary or expedient in
\n     the public\t interest in  respect of any matter relating
\n     to road  transport to  the State Transport Authority or
\n     to any Regional Transport Authority, and such Transport
\n     Authority shall give effect to all such directions.
\n\t  (2) Without  prejudice to  the generality  of\t the
\n     provisions of  sub-section (1)  such directions  may be
\n     given in  respect of  any\tof  the\t following  matters,
\n     namely:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)\tthe number  of stage  carriage\tor  contract
\n\t       carriage\t permits  that\tmay  be\t granted  in
\n\t       respect of any route or area.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
434<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  (b)\tthe preference or the order of preference to
\n\t       be given\t to or\tthe quota  to be  fixed for,
\n\t       specially deserving  categories, such  as Ex.
\n\t       Army personnel,\teducated unemployed persons,
\n\t       such persons  holding driving licences as are
\n\t       members of  cooperative societies  formed for
\n\t       passenger   transport\tbusiness,    persons
\n\t       belonging  to   the  Scheduled\tcastes\t and
\n\t       Scheduled Tribes.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)\tthe procedure  for grant of permits, and for
\n\t       selection   from\t   among   the\t applicants,
\n\t       including selection  by drawing\tof lots from
\n\t       among persons belonging to the same category.
\n\t  (3)\tAny direction  under sub-section  (1) may be
\n     issued with retrospective effect.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (4) Where  any  direction  is\t issued\t under\tsub-
\n     section (1) to any Transport Authority, then any appeal
\n     or\t revision   pending  before   the  State   Transport
\n     Appellate Tribunal shall also be decided in such manner
\n     as to give effect to such directions.
\n\t  (5) Where  any  direction  is\t issued\t under\tsub-
\n     section (1) with retrospective effect then\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)\t  any  Transport   Authority  or  the  State
\n\t       Transport Appellate  Tribunal may  review any
\n\t       order passed  earlier by\t it with  a view  to
\n\t       making it  conform to  such direction and may
\n\t       for that\t purpose cancel\t any permit  already
\n\t       issued.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  any Transport Authority may apply to the High
\n\t       Court earlier  with a  view to  enabling such
\n\t       authority to comply with such direction.
\n\t  (6)\tThe provisions\tof this\t section shall\thave
\n     effect not\t withstanding anything contained in sections
\n     47, 50 and 57.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The policy behind the above amendment was stated in the
\nStatement of  objects and  Reasons placed  before the  State
\nLegislature as follows:\n<\/p>\n
435<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “(5) In  1972 the  State Government had accepted a
\n     policy   of    granting\tbus    permits\t  liberally.
\n     Reconsideration of\t the  said  policy  however,  became
\n     necessary with  a view to checking unproductive capital
\n     expenditure and  unnecessary consumption  of  fuel\t and
\n     preventing the  elimination of  small  operators  as  a
\n     consequence of unreasonable competition and to removing
\n     difficulties in  the implementation  of long term plans
\n     pertaining to passenger road transport services. It was
\n     accordingly considered  necessary to  amend  the  Motor
\n     Vehicles Act,  1939, to  authorise the State Government
\n     to issue  directions from time to time in regard to the
\n     number of permits that may be granted in respect of any
\n     route or  area, the preference to be given to specially
\n     deserving categories  and the  procedure for  grant  of
\n     permits.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Pursuant to  the said  amended section 43-A of the Act,
\nthe  Government\t of  Uttar  Pradesh  issued  a\tNotification
\ncontaining directions  on March\t 12, 1976  in the  following
\nterms:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Whereas, in\texercise of  the powers conferred by
\n     section  43-A   of\t the   M.V.  Act,  1939,  the  State
\n     Government had by a notification No. 4251-T\/XXX-4-9P\/72
\n     dated September 24 1975, as amended by notification No.
\n     4530-T\/ XXX-4-75  dated October  6,1975  postponed\t the
\n     consideration  of\t applications  for  permits  by\t any
\n     transport authority  in respect  of non-notified routes
\n     until further  directions in  this behalf\tof the State
\n     Government.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Now,\ttherefore,   in\t exercise   of\tthe   powers
\n     conferred by the said section 43-A (2) of the M.V. Act,
\n     1939 read\twith section  21 of the General Clauses Act,
\n     1904, the Governor is pleased to direct:
\n\t  (1) That  the S.T.A. and R.T. As. while fixing the
\n     number of\tAdditional  Stage  Carriage  permits  to  be
\n     issued at a given time on non-notified routes, shall in
\n     addition to  the consideration  of the matter mentioned
\n     in sub-section  (1) of  section 47\t of  the  M.V.\tAct,
\n     ensure that  the operation of the total number of stage
\n     carriages on any route, taking
\n436<\/span>
\n     into  consideration   the\texisting   as  well  as\t the
\n     additional permits\t proposed to  be  issued,  would  be
\n     economically viable  on the  existing fare-structure as
\n     per the norms as laid down by the State Government from
\n     time to time ………………………..”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  above\t  notification\talso   contained  directions
\nregarding the  principle to  be followed  in determining the
\nnumber of  permits that\t could be  issued and reservation of
\npermits for operators displaced by nationalisation, educated
\nunemployed, members  belonging to  the Scheduled Castes, the
\nScheduled Tribes and other backward classes, unemployed army
\ndrivers and cooperative societies.\n<\/p>\n
     These directions  were superseded\tby the\tissue  of  a
\nfresh  notification   under  section   43-A  by\t  the  State
\nGovernment on  October 12,  1977 which\twas superseded\tby a
\nNotification dated October 15, 1978.\n<\/p>\n
     Within  a\t fortnight  from   the\tdate   of  the\tlast
\nNotification referred to above Parliament amended the Act by
\nenacting The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1978 (Act 47 of
\n1978) which inter alia amended the proviso to subsection (1)
\nof section  47 of  the Act and inserted sub-sections (1A) to
\n(1H) in\t that section.\tAfter this amendment, the proviso to
\nsub-section (1) of section 47 of the Act reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “47. (1)………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that\t other conditions  being  equal,  an
\n     application for  a stage  carriage permit\tfrom  a\t co-
\n     operative society\tregistered or  deemed to  have\tbeen
\n     registered under  any enactment  in force\tfor the time
\n     being and\tan application\tfor a  stage carriage permit
\n     from a  person who\t has a\tvalid  licence\tfor  driving
\n     transport vehicles\t shall, as  far as  may be, be given
\n     preference over applications from individual owners.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The new  sub-sections (1A) to (1H) of section 47 of the
\nAct read:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “47. (1) …………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
437<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  (1A) The  Government of  a State  shall reserve in
\n     that State certain percentage of stage carriage permits
\n     for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
\n\t  Explanation-In this section and in sections 55 and
\n     63, ‘Scheduled Castes,’ and ‘Scheduled Tribes’ have the
\n     meanings respectively  assigned to them in Article’ 366
\n     of the Constitution.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (1B) The  reservation of permits under sub-section
\n     (1A) shall\t be in\tthe same  ratio as  in the  case  of
\n     appointments  made\t by  direct  recruitment  to  public
\n     services in the State.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (1C) The  Government of a State may, having regard
\n     to\t the   extent  to   which   persons   belonging\t  to
\n     economically weaker sections of the community have been
\n     granted stage carriage permits in that State:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)\treserve in  that State\tsuch  percentage  of
\n\t       stage carriage permits, as may be prescribed,
\n\t       for persons  belonging to economically weaker
\n\t       sections of the community, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)\tnotwithstanding anything  contained  in\t the
\n\t       proviso to  sub-section (1), give preference,
\n\t       in such\tmanner\tas  may\t be  prescribed,  to
\n\t       applications for\t stage carriage permits from
\n\t       such person
\n\t  Explanation I-In  this section and in sections 55,
\n     63 and  68, a  person shall  be  deemed  to  belong  to
\n     economically weaker  section of  the community,  if and
\n     only if, on the prescribed date:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)\tthe annual  income of  such person  together
\n\t       with  the  annual  income,  if  any,  of\t the
\n\t       members of his family; or G\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)\tthe extent  of land (whether in one class or
\n\t       in different  classes), held  by such  person
\n\t       together with  that,  if\t any,  held  by\t the
\n\t       members of his family, or
\n438<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)\tthe annual  income and\tthe extent  of\tland
\n\t       aforesaid, does,\t or do not exceed such limit
\n\t       as may be prescribed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Explanation II.-  For the  purposes of Explanation
\n     I, “family”,  in relation\tto an  individual, means the
\n     wife or husband, as the case may be, of such individual
\n     and the minor children of such individual.
\n\t  (1D) The  number of  permits reserved\t under\tsub-
\n     section (1B)  and clause (a) of sub-section (1C), shall
\n     not exceed\t fifty per cent of the total number of stage
\n     carriage permits granted during a calendar year.
\n\t  (1E) In  giving effect  to the  provisions of sub-
\n     section (1B)  and clause  (a) of  sub-section (1C)\t the
\n     Regional Transport\t Authority or  the  State  Transport
\n     Authority may,  if it  considers necessary or expedient
\n     so\t to   do,  group   the\tvarious\t routes\t within\t its
\n     jurisdiction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (1F) Where  any stage\t carriage permit  is  to  be
\n     granted from  the quota reserved under sub-section (1B)
\n     or clause(a)  of sub-section  (1C) to  any\t cooperative
\n     society registered\t or deemed  to have  been registered
\n     under any\tenactment in force for the time being or any
\n     firm to  which the provisions of the Indian Partnership
\n     Act, 1932\t(9 of  1932),  apply,  no  permit  shall  be
\n     granted to\t such society  or firm unless the members of
\n     the co-operative  society or  the partners\t of the firm
\n     belong to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes or
\n     economically weaker sections of the community:
\n\t  Provided  that  where\t the  members  of  such\t co-
\n     operative society\tor the\tpartners of  such  firm\t are
\n     partly from  the  Scheduled  Castes,  partly  from\t the
\n     Scheduled\tTribes\tand  partly  from  the\teconomically
\n     weaker sections  of the  community, or  from any two of
\n     these categories,\tany permit  under  this\t sub-section
\n     shall be  granted to such society or firm only from the
\n     quota reserved  for the  category to  which the largest
\n     number of\tmembers of  the co-operative  society, or as
\n     the case may be, partners of the firm belong:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
439<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  Provided further  that where\tno  reservation\t has
\n     been made in the State for economically weaker sections
\n     of the  community under clause (a) of sub-section (1C),
\n     no permit\tunder this sub-section shall be granted to a
\n     co-operative society or firm unless the members of such
\n     society  or   partners  of\t such  firm  belong  to\t the
\n     Scheduled Castes  or the  Scheduled Tribes or partly to
\n     the Scheduled Castes and partly to the Scheduled Tribes
\n     and the permit to such society or firm shall be granted
\n     only from\tthe quota  reserved for the Scheduled Castes
\n     or the  Scheduled Tribes  according as  to whether\t the
\n     larger  number  of\t the  members  of  the\tco-operative
\n     society,  or  partners  of\t the  firm,  belong  to\t the
\n     Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes.
\n\t  (1G) The  circumstances under which, the manner in
\n     which, and\t the extent to which, reservation under sub-
\n     section (1A)  and clause (a) of sub-section (1C) may be
\n     carried forward shall be such as may be prescribed.
\n\t  (1H) Notwithstanding\tanything contained  in\tthis
\n     section, an  application for stage carriage permit from
\n     a State  transport undertaking  for  operating  in\t any
\n     inter-State route\tshall be  given preference  over all
\n     other applications:  Provided that\t the authority shall
\n     not grant\ta permit under this sub-section unless it is
\n     satisfied that the State transport undertaking would be
\n     able  to  operate\tin  the\t inter-State  route  without
\n     detriment to its responsibility for providing efficient
\n     and adequate  road transport  service in  any  notified
\n     area or notified route as is referred to in sub section
\n     (3) of  section 68D  where the undertaking operates the
\n     service.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section,
\n     ‘inter-State route’  means any route Lying continuously
\n     in two or more States.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     By the  amendment of  section 47  of the  Act as stated
\nabove,\tParliament  directed  that  the\t Regional  Transport
\nAuthority while\t considering applications for stage carriage
\npermits should,\t provided that other conditions being equal?
\ngive preference to an application
\n440<\/span>
\nfrom a\tperson who has a valid licence for driving transport
\nvehicles   over\t  applications\t from\tindividual   owners.
\nParliament  also   provided  for   reservation\tof   certain
\npercentage of  permits for  state  carriages  in  favour  of
\npersons belonging  to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
\nTribes in the same ratio as in the case of appointments made
\nby direct  recruitment\tby  a  State  Government  to  public
\nservices in that State. Since it was considered necessary to
\npromote the  well being\t of economically  weaker sections of
\nthe community,\tthe State  Government  was  empowered  under
\ncertain circumstances  either to  reserve certain percentage
\nof permits  for stage  carriages for  persons  belonging  to
\neconomically weaker  sections of  the community\t or to\tgive
\npreference to them in the prescribed manner. It was however,
\nprovided that  the number  of permits reserved under section
\n47(1B) and  (1C)(a) of\tthe Act\t should not exceed fifty per
\ncent of\t the total  number of stage carriage permits granted
\nin a calendar year. It was  also provided  that if  a  State
\nTransport Undertaking  applied for  a stage  carriage permit
\noperating in  any inter-State route, such application should
\nbe given preference over all other applications provided the
\nauthority we satisfied that the Undertaking would be able to
\noperate in  the inter-State  route without  detriment to its
\nresponsibility for  providing efficient\t and  adequate\troad
\ntransport service  in any notified area or notified route as
\nis referred to in sub section (3) of section 68-D of the Act
\nwhere the Undertaking operated its service. By the very same
\namending Act  of 1978  Parliament also amended section 68 of
\nthe Act\t by inserting  clauses (ci), (cii), (ciii) and (civ)
\nenabling  the\tState  Governments   to\t frame\t rules\t for
\nimplementing subsections  (1A) to  (1H) of section 47 of the
\nAct. The  above said  amendments made  to sections 47 and 68
\ncame into  force on  January 16, 1979. It is conceded by the
\nlearned\t Attorney   General  who   appeared  for  the  State
\nGovernment  that   these  amendments   which  were  made  by
\nParliament would  have an over riding effect on section 43-A
\nof the\tAct introduced\tearlier by the State Legislature and
\nthat section  43-A should  be read  subject to\tthose  later
\namendments  made   by  Parliament.   Curiously\t the   State
\nGovernment issued  on January  IO, 1981 and January 23, 1981
\nthe  impugned\tnotifications  which  are  set\tout  at\t the
\ncommencement of\t this judgment.\t By the\t first notification,
\nthe  State   Government\t directed   the\t Regional  Transport
\nAuthorities of\tthe State  of Uttar  Pradesh to\t issue stage
\ncarriage permits  (except in  respect of routes or areas for
\nwhich schemes  had been\t published under section 68-C of the
\nAct) to\t all eligible applicants and that there should be no
\nupper limit  to the  number of\tstage  carriages  for  which
\npermits might be
\n441<\/span>
\nprovided. By  the second impugned notification dated January
\n23, 1981,  the State Government directed the State Transport
\nAuthority and  the Regional  Transport Authorities  to\thave
\nregard only  to matters referred to in clauses (a), (b), (d)
\nand (f)\t of sub-section\t (1) of\t section 47  of the  Act and
\nshould also  take into\tconsideration representation made by
\nthe  local   authority\tor  police  authority  within  whose
\njurisdiction any  part of the proposed route or area lay. It
\nalso directed  that section 57 should be deemed to have been
\ncomplied with if the Transport Authority concerned intimated
\nthe particulars\t of the applications to such local authority
\nand police  authority for  making representations,  if\tany,
\nwithin a period of fifteen days from the date of despatch of
\nthe   intimation   with\t  the\tstipulation   that   if\t  no
\nrepresentation was  received within the prescribed period of
\ntime, it  would be  presumed that they had no representation
\nto make and considered any representation made by such local
\nauthority and police authority;\n<\/p>\n
     A reading\tof these  two notifications  shows that\t the
\nState Government  ignored,  first,  the\t legislative  policy
\nunderlying the Uttar Pradesh Act 15 of 1976 by which the new
\nsub-section (2)\t of section 43-A was enacted in substitution
\nof the\tformer sub section (2) with retrospective effect. As
\nstated earlier,\t the State  Legislature introduced  the\t new
\nsub-section (2)\t of  section  43-A  after  it  realised\t the
\nmistake committed  by the  State Government  in issuing\t the
\nnotification in\t the year  1972 directing  the issue  of bus
\npermits liberally in favour of all eligible applicants which
\nhad  resulted\tin  investment\t of   unproductive   capital
\nexpenditure and under utilisation of capital and fuel and in
\nunreasonable competition  which eventually  eliminated small
\noperators from\tbusiness. The  State Government also ignored
\nthe new\t policy governing the issue of permits introduced by
\nParliament by  amending section 47 of the Act. It was argued
\non behalf of the State Government before the High Court that
\nthe State  Government d not contravened either section 43-A,
\nor the provisions of section 47 as amended in the year 1978.
\nThe High  Court dismissed  the writ petitions observing that
\nthe Statement  of objects  and Reasons\tattached to the Bill
\nwhich was  ultimately enacted  as the  U.P. Act\t 15 of\t1976
\ncould not  over-ride the clear provisions of section 43-A as
\namended by  that Act. The High Court upheld the notification
\ndated January  10, 1981\t and further observed that since the
\nschemes of  grant of free permits had been upheld by it ‘the
\nState Government had the power to prescribe the procedure to
\nbe followed in
\n442<\/span>
\ngranting the  same  which  has\tbeen  provided\tfor  by\t the
\nNotification  dated   January  23,   1981′.  Repelling\t the
\ncontention of  the writ\t petitioners that  in the absence of
\nreservation  of\t the  required\tpercentage  of\tpermits\t for
\npersons belonging  to the  Scheduled Castes,  the  Scheduled
\nTribes and  weaker sections  as provided  in section  47  as
\namended by Parliament in 1978, the grant of permits would be
\nvitiated, the High Court observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The question of reservation, however, arises only
\n     in those  cases where the seats or articles are limited
\n     for distribution  or allotment  but where\tthere is  no
\n     limit or  no fixed\t number, the question of reserved on
\n     will not  arise. In  that event,  every body  would  be
\n     served according  to his need and aspiration. Hence, if
\n     under section  43-A a direction has been made for grant
\n     of stage  carriage permit\tto all\teligible  applicants
\n     without putting  any fixed\t number for  the vehicles to
\n     ply, the interest of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
\n     Tribes would  be sufficiently  safeguarded. A member of
\n     the Scheduled  Caste or  Scheduled\t Tribe\tas  well  as
\n     economically weaker  section of  the community would as
\n     much be  entitled to get a permit to run his vehicle as
\n     a member  of any other community. It is where the seats
\n     are limited  that the  legislature thought\t of making a
\n     provision to  reserve the\tgrant of  permits  in  their
\n     favour to\tthe extent  of 25  per cent.  The  principle
\n     behind reservation\t in  the  grant\t of  stage  carriage
\n     permits employed  by the  Parliament appears  to be the
\n     same as  in reserving  appointment\t in  the  Government
\n     service. If  today government services are available in
\n     abundance, the question of reservation would not arise.
\n     It is  only on  account of the posts being limited that
\n     the question  of reservation  has arisen. So we are not
\n     able to  agree with  the submission of the petitioner’s
\n     learned  counsel  that  there  is\ta  conflict  between
\n     section 43-A,  as inserted\t by the U.P. Legislature and
\n     the amendments  made in section 47 by Parliament in the
\n     Motor Vehicles Act .”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The High Court further proceeded to observe that though
\nthe tow\t impugned notifications did not follow the procedure
\nprescribed
\n443<\/span>
\nby sub-section\t(2) of section 43-A as it is now in force in
\nthe State  of Uttar  Pradesh, they  could be sustained under
\nsub-sec. (1)  of section  43-A which  authorised  the  State
\nGovernment to  issue such  directions of a general character
\nas it  might consider  necessary or  expedient in the public
\ninterest in respect of any matter relating to road transport
\nto  the\t  State\t Transport  Authority  or  to  the  Regional
\nTransport Authority  and which\trequired such  authority  to
\ngive effect  to any  such directions.  The High\t Court\talso
\nrelied upon  the decision  of this Court in Hans Raj Kehar’s
\ncase (supra)  to hold  that larger number of buses operating
\non different routes would be for the convenience and benefit
\nof the travelling public.\n<\/p>\n
     We may  here state\t that any  observations made in Hans
\nRaj Rehar’s  case (supra)  would be  inapplicable so  far as
\nthese cases  presently before us are concerned. In that case
\nthe Court was concerned with sub-section (2) of section 43-A
\nof the Act as it stood then which was a provision enacted by
\nthe Legislature.  That sub-  section provided  that  without
\nprejudice to  the  generality  of  the\tpower  contained  in
\nsection 43-A(1) of the Act where the State Government was of
\nopinion that  it was  in  public  interest  to\tgrant  stage
\ncarriage permits  (except) in respect of routes or areas for
\nwhich schemes  have been  published under  section 68 (C) or
\ncontract carriage  permits or  public carrier permits to all
\neligible applicants  it may  issue appropriate directions as
\nstated\ttherein.   That\t sub-section   contained   a   clear
\nlegislative policy  which considered  that there could be no
\npublic prejudice  if all  eligible applicants  were  granted
\npermits. Without  saying anything  more on the point, it may
\nbe stated  that whatever  this Court may have observed while
\nconsidering that provision would not apply now as there is a
\nclear departure\t made by  the Legislature  from that  policy
\nwhen it\t enacted the new sub-section (2) of section 43-A. In
\nthe face  of this  amendment by which the former sub-section
\n(2) of\tsection 43-A  which specifically authorised he State
\nGovernment when it was satisfied that it was necessary to do
\nso in  the  public  interest  to  issue\t directions  to\t the
\nTransport Authorities  to  grant  permits  to  all  eligible
\napplicants  was\t  deliberately\ttaken\taway  by  the  State
\nLegislature, the  High Court  was wrong in holding that such
\npower was  still available  under sub-section (1) of section
\n43-A of the Act which was widely worded. The High Court shut
\nits eyes  to the realities of the situation when it observed
\nthat in
\n444<\/span>
\nthis case  the contents\t of the\t Statement  of\tobjects\t and
\nReasons were  irrelevant as  the provisions  of section 43-A
\n(1) were  very clear.  Even without the aid of the Statement
\nof objects  and Reasons\t it has\t to  be\t held  that  by\t the
\nsubstitution of\t the former  sub-section (2) by the new sub-
\nsection\t (2)   in  section   43-A  the\tLegislature  clearly
\nexpressed itself  against the  policy of granting permits to
\nall eligible  applicants without  any consideration  to\t the
\nneeds  of  any\tparticular  locality  or  route\t or  to\t the
\nqualification of  applicants. It  is a\twell settled rule of
\nconstruction of\t statutes that\twhenever a  court is  called
\nupon to\t interpret an  amended provision  it has  to bear in
\nmind the  history of  that provision, the mischief which the
\nLegislature attempted  to remedy, the remedy provided by the
\namendment  and\t the  reason   for  providing  such  remedy.
\nTherefore, after the amendment at any rate it has to be held
\nthat sub-section  (1) of  section 43-A\tof the\tAct did\t not
\ncomprehend within  its scope  the power\t to issue direction,
\nfor issuing  permits to\t all eligible applicants without any
\nsort of restriction relevant to the scheme of the Act. What
\ndoes section  43-A(1) after all say ? It says that the State
\nGovernment may\tissue such directions of a general character
\nas it  may consider necessary in the public interest What is
\nthe meaning  of the  term ‘public interest’ ? In the context
\nof the\tAct, it\t takes within  its fold several factors such
\nas, the\t maximum number\t of permits  that may be issued on a
\nroute or  in  any  area\t having\t regard\t to  the  needs\t and
\nconvenience of\tthe travelling\tpublic, the non-availability
\nof sufficient  number of  stage carriage  services in  other
\nroutes\tor  areas  which  may  be  in  need  of\t running  of
\nadditional  services,\tthe  problems\tof  law\t and  order,
\navailability of\t fuel, problems\t arising out  of atmospheric
\npollution  caused  by  a  large\t number\t of  motor  vehicles
\noperating in any route or area, the condition of roads P and
\nbridges on  the routes, uneconomic running of stage carriage
\nservices leading  to  elimination  of  small  operators\t and
\nemployment of  more capital  than necessary  in\t any  sector
\nleading to starvation of capital investment in other sectors
\netc. Public  interest  under  the  Act\tdoes  not  mean\t the
\ninterest of the operators or of the passengers only. We nave
\nto bear\t in mind that like every other economic activity the
\nrunning of  stage carriage  service  is\t an  activity  which
\ninvolves use  of scarce\t or  limited  productive  resources.
\nMotor Transport\t involves a huge capital investment on motor
\nvehicles,  training   of  competent  drivers  and  mechanics
\nestablishment of  workshops, construction  of safe roads and
\nbridges, deployment of sufficient number of
\n445<\/span>
\npolicemen to  preserve\tlaw  and  order\t and  several  other
\nmatters. To say that larger the number of stage carriages in
\nany route or area more convenient it would be to the members
\nof the\tpublic is  an over  simplification of a problem with
\nmyriad facts affecting the general public. If we run through
\nthe various  provisions of the Act it becomes clear how much
\nattention is given by it to various matters affecting public
\ninterest. There\t are provisions\t relating  to  licensing  of
\ndrivers on  the basis  of  their  competence,  licensing  of
\nconductors,  specifications  to\t which\tthe  motor  vehicles
\nshould conform,\t coordination of  road and  rail  transport,
\nprevention of  deterioration of\t the road system, prevention
\nof uneconomic  competition among motor vehicles, fixation of
\nreasonable fare,  compliance  by  motor\t vehicles  with\t the
\nprescribed time\t table,\t construction  of  bus\tstands\twith
\nnecessary amenities, maintenance of standards of comfort and
\ncleanliness in\tthe  vehicles,\tdevelopment  of\t inter-State
\ntourist traffic and several other matters with the object of
\nmaking available adequate and efficient transport facilities
\nto all\tparts of  the country.\tAny direction  given by\t the
\nState Government  under\t section  43-A\tof  the\t Act  should
\ntherefore, be in conformity with all matters regarding which
\nthe statute  has made  provision. In  this situation  to say
\nthat any  number of  permits can  be issued  to any eligible
\noperator without  any upper  limit is to overstep the limits
\nof delegation of statutory power and to make a mockery of an
\nimportant economic activity like the motor transport.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  surprising that  the High  Court has reached the
\nconclusion that\t the  preferences  and\treservations  to  be
\nobserved while\tgranting permits as stated in the proviso to
\nsub-section (1)\t to section  47 and  in sub sections (1A) to
\n(1H) of\t section 47 have not been contravened as there is no
\nrestriction on\tthe number  of permits\tto  be\tissued.\t The
\nobservation of\tthe High  Court that  preferences have to be
\nshown and  reservations have  to be  made only when there is
\nscarcity of  permits and  since there are no restrictions on
\nthe number  of permits to be issued there is no necessity to
\nmake any  such provision  really shocks\t us. The  High Court
\nerred in  not noticing\tthat it\t was dealing  with  a  vital
\neconomic activity  which could\tbe carried on at a huge cost
\nboth to\t the operator  and to  the Government  and  that  by
\nissuing the  notification  containing  a  direction  to\t the
\nTransport Authorities  to issue limitless number of permits,
\nthe
\n446<\/span>
\nState Government  had attempted\t to circumvent\tsub-sections
\n(1) and\t (1A) to  (1H) of section 47 of the Act. Preferences
\nand reservations  have value  only when\t there is a limit on
\nthe number of permits to be issued and in the context of the
\nAct there  should necessarily  he a  limit on  the issue  of
\npermits to operate motor vehicles in respect of any route or
\narea. By  the method  adopted by it the State Government has
\nvirtually allowed  the rich  and well-to-do  businessman who
\ncan bear  the loss  for some time to introduce any number of
\nvehicles on  a route  or in  any area  until all  the  small
\noperators who  also may\t take the permits to leave the field
\nowing to the inevitable loss that ensues by the operation of
\nan  unlimited  number  of  vehicles.  The  learned  Attorney
\nGeneral while  conceding that  the amendment made in 1978 to
\nsection 47 of the Act should prevail contended that they had
\nnot been  violated by  the impugned notifications. We do not
\nagree with  the above submission. We are clearly of the view
\nthat the  State Government  has transgressed  the provisions
\ncontained in  sub-section (1)  and sub-sections (1A) to (1H)
\nof section 47. It has failed to comply with the duty imposed
\non it by those provisions.\n<\/p>\n
     We are  of the  view that\tthe  two  notifications\t are
\nclearly outside the scope of the Act. The first notification
\nwhich directs  that all eligible applicants shall be granted
\npermits and that there shall be no upper limit to the number
\nof permits  to be  issued for stage carriages and the second
\nnotification which says that the Transport Authorities shall
\nhave regard only to matters referred to in clauses (a), (b),\n<\/p>\n
(d) and\t (f) of sub-section (1) of section 47 of the Act and
\nthereby precludes  the Transport  Authorities to  take\tinto
\nconsideration matters  contained in  the proviso  to section
\n47(1) and  in sub-section  (1A) to (1H) of section 47 of the
\nAct are ultra vires the Act and they are liable to he struck
\ndown.\n<\/p>\n
     We, therefore,  allow  these  appeals,  set  aside\t the
\njudgment of  the High  Court in\t each  of  these  cases\t and
\ndeclare that  the Notification No. 68 T\/XXX-4-15 KM\/79 dated
\nJanuary 10,  1981 and  the Notification\t No. 241 T\/XXX-4-15-
\nP\/79 dated  January 23,1981  issued by the GoverDmeDt of the
\nState of Uttar Pradesh under section
\n447<\/span>
\n43-A of\t the Act  are ultra  vires and, therefore, void and,
\nineffective.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  circumstances of  the case.  there will  be  no
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
H.L.C.\t\t\t\t\t    Appeals allowed.\n448<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rameshwar Prasad Etc., Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 24 February, 1983 Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 383, 1983 SCR (2) 418 Author: E Venkataramiah Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J) PETITIONER: RAMESHWAR PRASAD ETC., ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT24\/02\/1983 BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-168513","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRameshwar Prasad Etc., Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 24 February, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rameshwar Prasad Etc., Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 24 February, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1983-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-13T09:44:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"52 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rameshwar Prasad Etc., Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 24 February, 1983\",\"datePublished\":\"1983-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-13T09:44:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983\"},\"wordCount\":8232,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983\",\"name\":\"Rameshwar Prasad Etc., Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 24 February, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1983-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-13T09:44:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rameshwar Prasad Etc., Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 24 February, 1983\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rameshwar Prasad Etc., Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 24 February, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rameshwar Prasad Etc., Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 24 February, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1983-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-13T09:44:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"52 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rameshwar Prasad Etc., Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 24 February, 1983","datePublished":"1983-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-13T09:44:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983"},"wordCount":8232,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983","name":"Rameshwar Prasad Etc., Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 24 February, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1983-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-13T09:44:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-prasad-etc-etc-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-others-on-24-february-1983#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rameshwar Prasad Etc., Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 24 February, 1983"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168513","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=168513"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168513\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168513"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168513"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168513"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}