Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
SABIR HUSSAIN & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT30/11/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (1) 626 1995 SCALE (6)777
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3488 OF 1979
Virendra Singh
V
State of U.P. & Ors.
O R D E R
Though the case has been called twice, the appellants
are not present in person. We have taken the assistance of
Shri K.S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the State.
The controversy raised in this case is covered by the
judgment of this Court in Ramesh Chand v. State of U.P.
[(1980) 1 SCR 498] where this Court had held that "failure
to specify number of services would not invalidate the draft
scheme under Section 68 C or the approved scheme under
Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939". Same is the
question in these appeals also. Under these circumstances,
the omission to specify the number of services in the
approved scheme does not invalidate the scheme already
approved.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed but in the
circumstances without costs.