2005 Supreme(SC) 570

2005(3) Supreme 521
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
Ashok Bhan & A.K. Mathur, JJ.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman —Appellant
versus
Omaditya Verma & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6716-6719 of 1999
Decided on 5-4-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Rakesh Kumar Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate, Pramod Swarup, Ms. Pareena Swarup and Ameet Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 17 in C.A.No. 6716/99 : Gaurav Jain, Ms. Abha Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondent 15 in C.A.No. 6717/99 : S. Borthakur, Sunil K. Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondent Nos. 13 in C.A.No. 6717/99 & 18 in C.A.No. 6716/99 : M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co., Advocates (NP).

Important point
Once a scheme is notified it prohibits the plying of private vehicle except as permitted by the scheme.

Headnote:(i) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—­Motor permits on notified routes—Once a scheme is notified it prohibits plying of private vehicle except as permitted by the Scheme—Route from Bijnore-Noorpur-Chandpur was notified under a scheme which was published in the Official Gazette of the State of U.P. on 12.2.1952—By another Gazette Notification dated 15.10.1962, a scheme was prepared from Bojnore to Muzaffarnagar route—Entire route, Muzaffarnagar Jansath, Meerapur, Dewal to Bijnore stood notified—State Transport Authority of U.P. by resolution dated June 14-15 of 1993 granted 38 regular stage carriage permits in the route, namely, Muzaffarnagar-Chhajlet via Gangabridge, Bijnore and Noorpur —Writ petitions filed challenging ­issuance of permits—Whether issuance of permits in pursuance of the reso­lution passed by State Transport ­Authority on June 14-15, 1993 was proper—(No)—Notified Scheme of 1952 from Bijnore to Noorpur was of total exclusion.

       Held : The route in question i.e. Muzaffarnagar to Chajlet covers the notified route from Bijnor to Noorpur which is notified route since 1952. We fail to understand how permit could be granted by the resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 from Muzaffarnagar to Chajlet in face of the notified scheme of 1952 from Bijnor to Noorpur. The scheme was of total exclusion. In fact the resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 is totally unmindful of the 1952 notification that the route from Bijnor to Noorpur which falls on the route from Muzaffarnagar to Chhjlet is notified route. This fact was no where brought to the notice of the authorities either before the Regional Transport Authority or State Transport Authority or before the High Court of Allahabad or for that matter to the Apex Court. This Court by order dated July 21, 1995 only remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for its decision. In those appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the present appellant i.e. UPSRTC was not a party. The dispute before this court was between the operators and the authorities and the UPSRTC was not made a party when the whole matter was remanded before the Tribunal. Had the UPSRTC been made a party before the Apex Court they would have brought to the notice of the Apex Court that a portion of the route from Bijnor to Noorpur is notified route. When the entire matter was remanded back to the Tribunal by the Apex Court by Order dated 21.7.1995, another notification was issued on September 3, 1994 whereby the route from Muzaffarnagar to Bijnor via Jansath, Meerapur and Dewal was also notified. Strangely enough UPSRTC was not party before Apex Court or before STAT. It is for the first time in 1993 before High Court the UPSRTC was impleaded as a respondent. It is true that when the resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 was passed at that time the route from Muzaffarnagar to Bijnor via Jansath Meerapur & Dewal was not notified but the route from Bijnor to Noorpur was already notified on February 12, 1952 and we do not understand how could the Regional Transport Authority and State Transport Authority ignore this fact that the portion from Bijnor to Noorpur which falls on the route from Muzaffarnagar to Chajlet was notified, permits were granted on this notified route. This ignorance appears to be bona fide as nobody seems to have been cognizant of the notification dated February 12, 1952. The appellant - UPSRTC could have been alive to the situation and should have moved the Tribunal and should have brought this fact to their notice but the appellant did not choose to take any step. We cannot appreciate their lack of vigilance. Be that as it may, the authorities issuing permits from Muzaffarnagar to Chajlat should have at least known that a portion of the route falling from Bijnor to Noorpur is a notified route. It is true that this matter has traveled up to the Apex Court and it has gone through various litigation but nobody brought to the notice of the authorities that the route from Bijnor to Noorpur is notified one and no permit could be granted on this route. It is needless to state that once it is nationalized route, there is prohibition to permit any private vehicle to ply except by amending the scheme. It is the mandate of the law and that cannot be ignored. More so, at the time when this order was passed by the Division Bench of the High Court the route from Muzaffarnagar to Bijnore via Jansath, Meerapur and Dweal stood notified on September 3, 1994. We regret to say that the Division Bench of the High Court has overlooked this aspect of the matter and proceeded to decide the matter on the assumption that the effect of this Notification dated September 3, 1994 has ­already been taken into consideration. We fail to appreciate this aspect. Once the route from Muzaffarnagar to Bijnor via Jansath, Meerapur and Dweal has already been notified on September 3, 1994 how can the High Court direct the appellant to grant permit on the aforesaid route. It is true that when resolution which was passed on June 14-15, 1993 by then the notification dated September 3, 1994 had not come into operation but once the scheme under notification dated September 3, 1994 came into operation and the whole route from Muzaffarnagar to Bijnore stood notified and the route from Bijnore to Noorpur was already notified by notification dated February 12, 1952, how can mandamus be issued by the High Court directing the authorities to grant permits to the 38 operators. (Para 6)

       (ii) Constitution of India—Article 136—Special Leave Petitions—Dismissal in limine does not amount to upholding of the law propounded in the decision sought to be appealed against. (Para 6)