Home  /  Motor Vehicles Act  /  Section 102

Section 102: Cancellation or modification of scheme

Motor Vehicles Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1988
Section 101 All 217 Sections of Motor Vehicles Act Section 103

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 102

Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vests plenary statutory authority in the State Government to modify or cancel any approved nationalization scheme in the public interest, subject to mandatory procedural requirements of gazetted publication, regional newspaper notification, and audi alteram partem hearings for affected operators.

  • Public Interest Prerequisite: The State Government may exercise power to modify or cancel an approved scheme at any time, provided it arrives at a subjective satisfaction, anchored in objective materials, that such modification is necessary in the public interest.
  • Dual Mandatory Hearing Requirement: Mandates that a fair hearing and reasonable opportunity of being heard must be accorded to both the State Transport Undertaking and any other person or private operator who, in the opinion of the State Government, is likely to be adversely affected by the proposed modification.
  • Rigorous Gazette and Vernacular Publication Mandate: Section 102(2) requires the proposed modification to be published in the Official Gazette and in at least one regional language newspaper circulating in the affected area, prescribing a mandatory minimum 30-day window from gazette publication for submitting representations.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Adarsh Travels Bus Service v. State of U.P. (1985) 4 SCC 557: A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court affirmed that an approved scheme is law under Chapter VI; any modification or relaxation permitting private operators to ply on notified routes can only be effected through the rigorous statutory procedure of Section 102 and cannot be achieved through administrative executive orders.
  • M.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. B.P. Upadhyaya AIR 1966 SC 156: The Supreme Court held that the power to cancel or modify a nationalization scheme is quasi-judicial in character; failure to publish the draft modification in the manner prescribed or denying a hearing to affected transport operators renders the modification void ab initio.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In judicial review proceedings under Article 226 challenging a scheme modification, compute the 30-day objection period strictly from the date of the Official Gazette publication. Challenge any modification where regional newspaper circulation was suppressed or where individual notices were denied to existing permit holders plying on overlapping corridors.

Section 101 All 217 Sections of Motor Vehicles Act Section 103