Private operators cannot be granted permits for overlapping routes if exclusivity is established in the notified scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. A learned single Judge of this Court has referred the following question to this Bench:
"Whether under a scheme in which a notified route overlaps a portion of a pre - existing route there is total exclusion of private operators without there being specific provision cancelling or modifying the existing permits on the overlapped route, can the permits be so renewed as to cover overlapped portion of the notified route?"

2. The facts giving rise to this reference are necessary to be noted. Respondents Nos. 3 to 14 are private operators, they held stage carriage permits for providing road transport service on the route Muzaffarnagar - Saharanpur via Bamanheri - Deoband and Galgalheri. On the expiry of the period of their permits they made applications for renewal of their permits but the Regional Transport Authority rejected their application on the ground that a portion of the route lying between Muzaffarnagar - Bamanheri and Saharanpur - Galgalheri formed part of notified routes Muzaffarnagar - BareloBasera and Saharanpur - Hardwar via Chutmalpur and Galgalheri. Respondents Nos. 3 to 14 filed appeal against the order of the Regional Transport Authority. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and renewed their permits with corridor restrictions for the overlapping portions of the notified routes. The corridor restrictions laid down a condition in the renewed permit to the effect that while plying their stage carriages on the Muzaffarnagar - Saharanpur route via Bamanheri and Galgalheri, respondents Nos. 3 to 14 shall not pick up or set down passengers on the notified portion of the route, namely, Muzaflarnagar - Bamanheri and Saharanpur - Golgolheri route. The U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) filed writ petition in this Court challenging the orders of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.

3. At the hearing of the writ petition before Hari Swarup, J. it was urged on behalf of the Corporation that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal had no authority in law to renew or grant permits to private operators for providing road transport services on any portion of the notified routes. On behalf of respondents Nos. 3 to 14 it was submitted that the scheme notifying Muzaffarnagar - Basera via Bamanheri - Berla route did not contain any specific direction for cancellation or modification of respondents' permits which were in respect of an existing route, namely, Muzaffarnagar - Saharanpur. It was further urged that since the respondents' permits had been renewed with corridor restrictions, the integrity of the scheme of the notified routes was not violated, Reliance was placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in State of U. P. v. Radhey Lal Sarin, Spl. Appeal No. 1042 of 1970, D/- 29-3-1970 (All). In Sarin's case the question was whether private operators were prohibited from plying stage carriages on Agra - Gwalior, an inter - statal route, because it overlapped Agra - Dholpur route which was a notified route under Chapter IV - A of the Motor Vehicles Act . The Bench held that since the scheme did not provide prohibition to the Plying of a private operator on Agra - Gwalior route, the scheme did not affect the right of permit - holders to ply their stage carriages on the overlapping portion of the notified route. The petitioner Corporation relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal , AIR 1974 SC 1940 . Since the view taken by the Division Bench of this court was contrary to the decision of