1959 (1) TMI 22 - SUPREME COURT

Whether the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act (100 of 1956) passed by Parliament was wholly repugnant to the provisions of the U. P. Act and therefore the law became void under the provisions of Art. 254(1) of the Constitution, with the result that at the present time there is no valid law where under the State can prohibit the appellants exercising their fundamental right under the Constitution, namely, carrying on the business of motor transport?

Held that:- The express words used in clause (b)certainly take in the scheme framed under the -repealed Act. It was a thing duly done under the repealed Act. Section 24 deals with the continuation of orders, schemes, rules, forms or bye-laws. made or issued under the repealed Act. But that section applies only to the repeal of a Central Act but not a State Act. But the exclusion of the scheme is sought to be supported on the basis of the argument that in the case of a repeal of a Central Act, both the sections apply and, in that context, a reasonable interpretation would be to exclude what is specifically provided for from the general words used in s. 6. Whatever justification there may be in that context, there is none when we are concerned with the repeal of a State Act to which s. 24 does not apply. In that situation, we have to look to the plain words of s. 6 and ascertain whether those words are comprehensive enough to take in a scheme already framed. We have no doubt that a scheme framed is a thing done under the repealed Act.

The provisions starting from s. 68C only contemplate a scheme initiated after the Amending Act came into force and therefore they cannot obviously be inconsistent with a scheme already framed under the State Act before the Amending Act came into force. We, therefore, hold that s. 6 of the General Clauses Act saves the scheme framed under the U. P. Act.

In all the circumstances, we cannot hold that the said appellants accepted the alternative routes. If they or some of them choose to accept any alternative routes, they are at liberty to do so, in which event they will not be entitled to any compensation.

It appears that the Regional Transport Authority renewed his permit on October 11, 1956 with effect from November 1, 1953 to October 31, 1956. In the circumstances, as the petitioner was not a permit-holder when the Government made the order, no relief can be given to him in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.