1. Route notification under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act — cancellation of permits granted under a self-employment scheme for unemployed graduates. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 2134
1997(1) Supreme 257
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Vikram Shitole & Anr. -Appellants
versus
The M.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 811 of 1986
Decided on 11-12-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Advocate, Pravir Choudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Rajinder Narain & Co. (NP).
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
In a notified frozen route no private operator is entitled to ply the stage carriage.
In a notified frozen route no private operator is entitled to ply the stage carriage.
Subject
Motor Vehicles Act - Stage Carriage Permits
Act Referred
Headnote
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 68D(3)-A route notified-Scheme framed for "self-employment" of unemployed graduates to operate stage carriages on notified route-SRTC had the permits obtained-No one except S.R.T.C. shall exclusively ply the stage carriage on notified route-Self employment scheme is illegal-No illegality in High Court dismissing writ of appellants. (Para 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the cancellation of permits issued under a self-employment scheme for operating stage carriages on a notified route. (Para 2 )
3. Notification under Section 68-D(3) restricts operation to the State Road Transport Corporation, rendering schemes allowing private operators on frozen routes illegal. (Para 3 )
4. Private operators are not entitled to ply stage carriages on notified frozen routes, and the Corporation cannot appoint private nominees to operate under its permits. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 4 )
6. Can private operators ply stage carriages on a route notified under Section 68-D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act?
No. Once a notification under Section 68-D(3) is published, pre-existing operators must cease operations except as per the scheme. If the State Road Transport Corporation holds the permits, no private operator is entitled to ply stage carriages on that notified frozen route. (Para 3 )
7. Is it permissible for a State Road Transport Corporation to allow private operators to operate as nominees under its permit on a notified route?
No. It is not permissible under the Act for the Corporation to allow a private operator as its nominee to operate a motor vehicle as a stage carriage on a notified route, nor can it collect nomination fees, royalty, or supervision charges. (Para 3 )
8. What is the legal status of a self-employment scheme allowing private operators on a notified frozen route where the State Road Transport Corporation holds permits?
Such a scheme is illegal because, under the notified scheme, only the State Road Transport Corporation shall exclusively ply stage carriages on the notified route. (Para 3 )
ORDER
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench in Miscellaneous Petition No. 572 of 1985 dated January 13, 1986.
2. The admitted position is that the route in question, i.e., Gwalior to Indore, was notified under Chapter IV-A of Motor Vehicles Act ("Act 4 of 1939", for short) which has been repealed and re-enacted by Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. After the approved route was published under Section 68D(3), a scheme was framed under which unemployed graduates were permitted under "self-employment scheme" to operate the stage carriages on the notified route subject to certain terms and conditions. It would appear that the appellants did not comply with the said terms and conditions as a result of which their permits were cancelled by the authorities. Calling the action in question the appellants filed a writ petition. The High Court has dismissed the said writ petition. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
3. The controversy is no longer res integra. It is settled legal position that once notification under sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act is published in the Gazette, all the pre-existing operators shall cease to operate on the frozen routes except in accordance with the terms and conditions mentioned in the scheme itself which is law by itself. If the State Road Transport Corporation fails to obtain permit, power has been granted to STA/RTA to grant temporary permit until the S.R.T.C. obtains regular permits. In this case, admittedly, the State Road Transport Corporation had the permits obtained and that, therefore, under the notified scheme no one except the State Road Transport Corporation shall exclusively ply the stage carriages on the notified route in terms of the scheme itself. The self-employment scheme therefore, is obviously illegal. This court in the case of Brij Mohan Parihar etc. v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. etc.1 considered this aspect of the matter and in paragraph 3 of the judgment it was held that it is not, however, permissible under the Act for the Corporation to obtain a permit under Chapter IV-A of the Act and to allow a private operator as its nominee to operate under that permit his motor vehicle as a stage carriage on the notified route. It cannot be granted permission to collect any money either as nomination fees or as royalty or supervision charges. Thus, it would be seen that in a notified frozen route no private operator is entitled to ply the stage carriage. Accordingly, we hold that dismissal of the appellants writ petition by the High Court is not vitiated by any error of law warranting interference.
4. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
********
