1996(8) Supreme 338
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
U.P. State Roadways Transport Corpn., Lucknow through its General Manager -Appellant
versus
Anwar Ahmad. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 13119-28 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10579-88 of 1996)
Decided on 30-9-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, Raju Ramachandran, Pradip Misra, T.Mahipal, Advocates.
For the Respondent : H.N. Salve, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Rani Chhabra and Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Advocates.
(ii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 100-Grant of permit-Scheme notified-New route sought to be introduced by respondents by fusing two notified routes-Temporary permit sought to be obtained on carved out route-Altered or modified routes were contrary to approved scheme-No private operator have right to Camouflage any device to obtain temporary permit. (Para 6)
ORDER
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This case has a chequered history of its own. For over three decades, the scheme was not allowed to be finalised, but ultimately by the judgment of this Court in Ram Krishna Verma & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.1, the scheme was finalised and published in the Gazette. Two unsuccessful attempts were made subsequently to reopen the issue and thwart the scheme but remained unsuccessful. This is a third occasion. This time a device was employed to carve out a route from two nationalised routes, viz., Bulandshaher to Delhi and Shahdara to Saharanpur. They are now sought to be interjected with temporary permits to be obtained on the carved out route Ghaziabad to Saharanpur. Thereby, they sought to entrench upon frozen field through back-door process of forcing the appellant to obtain all permits as per the scheme, lest the temporary permits should be given to them by the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be.
3. The High Court of Allahabad by order dated June 2, 1995 directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider the grant of temporary permits for the Ghaziabad to Saharanpur route and, in the meanwhile, liberty was given to the appellant-Corporation to lift the permit granted for the route. When the proceedings were taken out before the State Transport Authority to grant permits that necessitated filing of the writ petition. By the impugned order dated November 17, 1995 of the High Court in the contempt proceedings and also orders dated January 10, 1996 and January 16, 1996, temporary permits were directed to be taken by the respondents. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
4. In view of the settled legal position that once the scheme has been approved and notified, right to ply stage carriages by private operators on the notified area, routes or portions thereof is totally frozen. Therefore, they have no right to claim any grant of stage carriage, temporary or contact carriage permits thereunder on the said notified area, routes or portions thereof except to the extent saved by the scheme with restrictions imposed thereunder. Shri Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel, sought to rely upon proviso to Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act ) to justify the orders which provides as under :
"104. Restriction on grant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route.-Where a scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of Section 100 in respect of any notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme:
Provided that where no application for a permit has been made by the State transport undertaking in respect of any notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, may grant temporary permits to any person in respect of such notified area or notified route subject to the condition that such permits shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State transport undertaking in respect of that area or route."
5. It would, therefore, be seen that where the scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of Section 100 in respect of any notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall not grant any permit expect in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. Thus, the appellant-Corporation has the exclusive right or monopoly to ply their stage carriages and obtain the required permit as per the scheme. The provisions gives only a limited breath of life, namely, until the Corporation puts the vehicles on the notified routes as per the scheme, temporary permits may be granted to private operators. Thereby, it would be clear that tempo
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.