The importance of permanent permits for inter-state routes and the impact on commuters and economic development.

      1. Heard.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in this PIL is that in accordance with the reciprocal agreement entered between the State of M.P. and State of U.P., the State of M.P. has a right to issue permits on certain inter-state routes. State of U.P. did not counter sign the permits issued by the State of M.P., hence, the residents of districts of M.P. neighbouring the U.P. are facing problems and they can not travel easily.

3. It is an admitted fact that a reciprocal agreement was entered between the State of Utter Pradesh and State of Madhya Pradesh and it was in force w.e.f. 21.11.2006. A copy of the agreement has been filed as Annexure P/2 alongwith the petition. Inter-state routes specified in Schedule-A have been reserved for private operators and inter-state routes specified in Schedule-B have been reserved for transport corporation.

4. State of M.P. has decided to close the operations of the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation. It is an admitted fact that M.P. State Road Transport Corporation has not been plying any vehicle on the nationalised routes or inter- state routes. These routes have been de-notified. This fact has been noted by this court in W.P.No.15166/2007 in order dt.21.7.2011 and the court has held as under :-

"We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we are of the view that by efflux of time, this petition has lost its efficacy. Admittedly the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation is not now plying its any vehicle and all the nationalised routes are de-notified. In view of the aforesaid factual scenario, it would be open to the transport operators to apply for permanent/temporary permit before the competent authority who may deal with the applications in accordance with law. We have no manner of doubt that competent authority shall bear in mind the aspect of convenience of the public. Needless to state that all the interim orders passed in this writ petition stand discharged.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of."

5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in one SLP bearing SLP(Civil) No (s).23463/2011 noted the fact that on the basis of counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of M.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, M.P. State Road Transport Corporation has not been plying any vehicle and all the nationalised routes have been de-notified. The findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded in the aforesaid SLP are as under:-

"In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of M.P., it is stated that the M.P.State Road Transport Corporation is not plying any of its vehicles and all the nationalized routes have been de- notified.

Further, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation it is stated as follows :

"After coming to know about the aforesaid 'No objection' of the Central Government for winding up of the then Managing director of Respondent No.3 corporation, as the direction of the Central Government, the Managing Director of Respondent No.3 and issued a scheme called as "Voluntary Retirement from Service". Number of employees who were aware of the financial losses and the financial condition of the Corporation took VRS and left the job. Further, for remaining employees, the Respondent No.3 has been continuing the voluntary retirement scheme that of 1.7.2005. As a result of this, as of today out of 10719 employees only 296 employees have remained in the service to attend day-to-day work till its final closure."

In view of the above factual scenario we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly."

6. State of M.P. used to issue temporary permits on the inter-state routes, which have been de- notified by the State Government and on which earlier the State Road Transport Corporation had been plying its buses, however, the authorities of the State of U.P. refused to counter-sign the aforesaid permits on the basis of the judgment passed by the Divisio