Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through its Chief General Manager – Appellant
Versus
Kashmiri Lal Batra and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10522 of 2025
WITH
Pankaj Pandey and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of M.P. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10523 of 2025
WITH
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others – Appellants
Versus
Guruprit Singh and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10524 of 2025
WITH
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others – Appellants
Versus
Javed Akhtar and Others – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 29083 of 2018
WITH
Virender Singh and Others – Appellants
Versus
Uttar Pradesh State Transport Authority and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 748 of 2024
Decided On : 04-11-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 88 and 98 – Grant of stage carriage permit to a private operator on an inter-State route – IS-RT Agreement by its very nature is an agreement between two States but not a law under relevant MV Act – Approved schemes and notified routes, which are envisaged in Chapter VI, would override Section 88 – Once two States hold talks for formulating and opening up routes for plying of stage carriages connecting cities/towns in such States on reciprocal basis and reduce agreed terms to a written agreement, which is also given wide publicity to remove any possible hurdles, there is presupposition of various objects and purposes having been factored therein, which have serving public interest at forefront – If two reciprocating States fail to notice that services to be introduced would face road-blocks because certain inter-State routes overlap a few intra-State routes, public interest is rendered a casualty and thereby, whole object and purpose of the IS-RT Agreement would be frustrated and lost in the process – However, nation having made substantial progress in road transport sector, interests of passengers and commuters ought to be of prime concern for transport authorities – Stage carriage services are provided for benefit of a vast cross-section of population and subjecting them to inconvenience would amount to disservice by States of MP and UP – Such measures ought to be affected upon consensus being reached for permitting private operators to ply on inter-State routes originating from State of MP and terminating in State of UP and back – To what extent interest of UPSRTC needs to be protected and can be achieved is left to discretion of Transport Authorities of States of UP and MP. (Paras 45, 48 and 49)
Facts of the case:
Civil appeals and writ petition under consideration seem to raise a substantial question of law. It is: whether a stage carriage permit can be granted to a private operator on an inter-State route in terms of an IS-RT Agreement executed by and between two neighbouring States under Section 88 of 1988 MV Act when portion of such inter-State route is common to an intra-State route which has been notified in terms of a scheme approved per provisions of Chapter VI of 1988 MV Act?
Findings of Court:
Though it has not been conclusively established before Court that MPSRTC has been wound up, an opportunity ought to be extended to establish it and if proved, at least an attempt ought to be made to fully work out IS-RT Agreement with modifications which itself contemplates that such a modification could be made.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
INTRODUCTION
1. The MOTOR VEHICLES ACT OF 19391 [1939 MV Act] was a legislation dealing with a host of matters of everyday concern related to use of motor vehicles till its repeal in 1988. It dealt with matters concerning various kinds of motor vehicles, its registration, license to drive and operate, insurance, road rules, traffic control, control of public transport, the transport authorities, the necessity to obtain permits, inter-State reciprocal transport agreements, State Road Transport Corporations2 [SRTCs] compensation in case of road accidents caused by errant vehicles by a duly constituted tribunal and so on. After almost 60 (sixty) years of its existence, the Parliament introduced the 1988 MV Act w.e.f. 1st July, 1988. The 1988 MV Act is more or less like its precursor but with certain additional provisions to tackle modern day challenges. Spread over 15 chapters, the 1988 MV Act is considered to be a complete code in itself for anything and everything related to motor vehicles. One notable feature of the 1988 MV Act is that it brought about a sea change in the policy regarding grant of permits for plying stage carriages on intra-Region, inter-Region and inter-State routes. Challenge to the liberalized policy of grant of permits came up for consideration before a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Mithilesh Garg vs. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 168. This Court held that the policy neither infringed Article 14 nor Article 19 rights of existing operators.
2. In these appeals arising out of judgment(s) and order(s) of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh3 [High Court] and the sole writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking enforcement of rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) thereof, we too are concerned with grant of permits but on certain inter-State routes which overlap portions of certain intra-State notified routes. Thus, Chapter V of the 1988 MV Act titled CONTROL OF TRANSPORT VEHICLES and Chapter VI thereof titled SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO STATE TRANSPORT UNDERTAKINGS and V form the focal point of our consideration.
3. Delay in presenting SLP (C) Diary No. 29083 of 2018 is condoned.
Leave granted.
THE IMPUGNED ORDERS
IMPUGNED ORDER IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10522-10523 OF 2025
4. Kashmiri Lal Batra4 [Kashmiri Lal] approached the High Court, Bench at Gwalior, in its public interest litigation jurisdiction by filing a writ petition5 [W.P. No. 8678 of 2013 (PIL)] inter alia, seeking a mandamus to the respondents to countersign permits granted by the State Transport Authority of Madhya Pradesh.6 [STA, MP] The respondents before the High Court were the state transport authorities/departments of the States of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Haryana.
5. The case pleaded in the writ petition by Kashmiri Lal reveals that in terms of an inter-State reciprocal transport agreement dated 21st November, 20067 [IS-RT Agreement] executed by and between the STA, MP and the State Transport Authority, Uttar Pradesh8 [STA, UP] under Section 88 of the 1988 MV Act, the Madhya Pradesh State Transport Corporation9 [MPSRTC] had exclusive right to operate buses on inter-State routes specified in Schedule B of the IS-RT Agreement. Schedule A of the IS-RT Agreement earmarked routes exclusively for plying of stage carriages by private operators.
6. It was alleged that MPSRTC had been wound up and, thus, it stopped plying buses on these routes which came to be de-notified. Clause 4(3) of the IS-RT Agreement provided that once de-notified, the routes in Schedule B would be deemed to be included in Schedule A. The private operators had claimed that routes specified in Schedule B be converted and included in Schedule A so that they could be selected and issued permits to ply stage carriages on the routes mentioned in Schedule A, subject to provisions of the 1988 MV Act.
7. To operate stage carriages on the routes mentioned in Schedule B, which stood de-notified, the private operators applied for an
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
