Holding

The stay order did not preclude the grant of permits on the appellants' route, which was not covered by the writ petitions, and therefore the cancellation of the permits was invalid.

Summary

The appellants applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun for stage carriage permits on the Muzaffarnagar‑Yamuna Bridge route. While the applications were pending, the Supreme Court stayed the issuance of fresh permits on routes covered by certain writ petitions, but clarified that the stay did not prohibit the grant of permits on other routes. The RTA nevertheless granted and issued permits to the appellants on 11‑13 February 1991. After the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions on 22 November 1991, the Chairman of the RTA cancelled the appellants' permits on 19 December 1991 without notice, a cancellation was upheld by the Allahabad High Court. On appeal, this Court held that the stay order did not preclude the grant of permits on the appellants' route, as the route was not the subject of any writ petition and the term "allied routes" referred only to extensions of the petitioned route. Consequently, the High Court’s order and the Chairman’s cancellation were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court's stay order of 7 February 1991 precluded the grant of stage carriage permits on the Muzaffarnagar‑Yamuna Bridge route.
Whether the expression "allied routes" in the writ petitions encompassed the appellants' route.
Whether the cancellation of the permits by the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority without notice violated principles of natural justice.
Whether the partial overlap of the appellants' route with a notified route rendered the grant of permits impermissible.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Subjects

Motor Vehicles Actstage carriage permitsstay orderallied routesnatural justicetransport authoritywrit petitionpermit cancellation

Judgment

•
A MITHILESH RANI AND ORS. '
v.
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, DEHRADUN AND ORS.

MARCH 4, 1994

B [M.M. PUNCHHI AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.)

Motor Vehicles Act, 198/f-Grant of stage permits-Applications pend-
ing-Order of stay granted by Supreme Court in another matter prohibiting
issue of fresh permit~ether stay order did in any way preclude grant of
c permits to appellants on route applied for-Held : no.

The appellants applied to the Regional Transport Authority, for
grant of stage carriage permits on the route Muzalfarnagar to Yamuna
Bridge. While the said applications were pending, some other persons
challenged· the contitutionality of ceratln provisions of the Motor Vehicles
D Act, 1988 by way of writ petitions. The Supreme Court passed an interim
order prohibiting issue. of permits on various routes concerned in the writ • ;

petitions. The Regional Transport Authority sanctioned the grant of per·
mits to the appellants on the route applied for. Subsequently, the writ
petitions pending were dismissed by the Supreme Court.
E
The grant of permits in favour of appellants was challenged in the
Allahabad High Court. An interim order was passed by the High Court
observing that the Regional Authority while issuing permits did not show
due respect to the orders of the Supreme Court. The Authority cancelled
the permits granted to the appellants. Writ Petition filed against the order
F cancelling permits bas been dismissed by the Division Bench. This appeal
...,
is directed against the said order, contending that the grant of permit to
the appellants on the said route was in no way affected by the stay order
and that route concerned In the Writ Petitions before the Supreme Court
only partly overlapped the route on which the appellants were granted
G permits.

Allowing the appeal, this Court
r,
HELD: l.l. The order of stay granted by this court did not preclude
the grant of pe.rmits on the said route, on which the appelU.nts were
H granted permits. The said route was not the subject matter of any of the
316
\

MITHILESH v. TPT.AUTHORITY [JEEVANREDDY,J.) 317
)
writ petitions filed in this Court. The attempt to bring in this route within A
the purview of the said stay order with reference to the expression "allied
routes" occurring in the Writ P~itlon is a vain one. The expression "allied
routes" referred to the extensions of the route concerned therein. The said
expression cannot take in the route concerned herein. Io such a situation,
there could not have been any objection to the grant of permits to the B
appellants to the said route. [321-E·F; 322-B]

1,2, Regarding the submission that in as much as a portion of the
said route is overlapped by a notified route, no permits could have granted
on the _said route, this court declines to go into the said question, in view
of the facts and circumstances of the case. [323-AB] C
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1541 of
1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.93 of the Allahabad High
). Court in C. Misc. W.P. No. 4488 of 1992. D

P. Chidambaram, H.P. Dubey and Salish Vig for the Appellants.

G.L. Saoghi, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Gaurav Jain and Ms. Abba Jain for
the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B,P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted. Heard counsel for the
parties .
• This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High F
Court dated December 16, 1993 dismissing C.W.P.No. 4488 of 1992. The
matter arises under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The appellants applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Deh-
radun for grant of sta1Je carriage permits on the route Muzaffarnagar to
Yamuna Bridge via Rampur Deoband-Sidki-Tapri-Saharanpur and Sar- G
> .,
sawa (hereinafter referred to as the "said route"). While the said applica·
tions were pending before the Regional Transport Authority, some other
persons challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by w;,y of writ petitions under Article 32 of the Con-
stitution of India in this court. Writ Petition (C) No.869 of 1990 was one H
I

318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994/ 2 S.C.R.
,
A of them. The petitioner in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 869 of 1990 was plying
'
on the route Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Khandola-Issopurteel. On February
2, 1991, this court passed a common order in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 1110
of 1989, 869 of 1990, 740 of 1990 and 1100 of 1990 to the following effect:

"These writ petitions have been listed for final hearing. In one of
B the writ petitions Rule has already been issued. But the others are
still at the admission stage.
·~

List the main matter for hearing alongwith the other writ
petitions as third item in the regular list.
c Pending hearing and disposal of these writ petitions, we direct
that the State Transport Authority of the Regional Transport
Authority will be entitled to consider any further applications for
permits on various routes concerned in these WPs and no permit
will be actually issued without o1'taining the orders of this court.'
D
By its proceedings dated Fepruary 11, 1991, the Regional Transport
Authority sanctioned the grant of permits to the appellants on the said
route. On February 13, 1991, permits were actually issued and the appel-
lants say they started playing.
E Certain parties affected by this court's interim order dated February
7, 1991 applied for impleading themselves as respondents in Writ petition
(C) No.869 of 1990 and for modification of the said interim order. On that
application, this court passed the following order by way of clarification of
the earlier order. The order read' as follows:
F
"The applicants are allowed to be impleaded as parties in the writ •
petition. Cause title may be amended accordingly.

So far as the directions part of the applications are concerned
we are informed that our order dated 7.2.91 is being construed as
G precluding the issue of permits even in cases where applications
for permits have been filed and permits have been granted before
7.2.91. We wish to make it clear that our order dt.7.2.91. was only
intened to preclude the grant of fresh permits on or after 7.2.91.
Our order should not be construed as precluding grant of permits
H in respect of other matters.
1.

MITHILESH v. TPT.AUTHORITY [JEEVAN REDDY,J.] 319
)
4
The main writ petition is listed for hearing on 2nd April, 1991." A
On November 22, 1991, the four writ petitions including Writ Petition
(C) No.869 of 1990 were dismissed by this court.

Meanwhile, Sri Abad Hussain S/o Mohd. Zafar, third respondent in
this appeal, filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court questioning B
the grant of permits by the Regional Transport Authority by its proceed-
.jf ings dated February 11, 1991. The High Court entertained the writ petition
and passed an interim order to the following effect on February 25, 1991:
"Meanwhile the respondents shall not operate on the route in question in
pursuance of the resolution dated February 11, 1991 until 25th March, 1991
unless recalled earlier". On March 26, 1991, the High Court made another
c
order affirming the earlier order of February 25, 1991 and observing thus:
"We are satisfied that the Regional Transport Authority Dehradun while
issuing permits to the respondents 2 to 28 did not show due respect to the
orders of the Supreme Court passed in Writ Petition (C) No.740 of 1990
on 7th February, 1991. In these circumstances, we direct that the interim D
• order already passed by this court shalt continue to operate. However, we
make it clear that the interim order passed by this court shall cease to be
operative in the event the order passed by the Supreme Court on 7th
February, 1991 is either vacated or modified". (Respondents 2 to 28
referred to in the order are the appellants herein.) E
After the dismissal of Writ Petition (C) No.869 of 1990 and others
by this court on November 22, 1991, the appellants approached the
Regional Transport Authority to permit them to ply in pursuance of the
.. permits already granted to them. They submitted that in view of the
dismissal of the writ petitions by this court, there was no reason not to F
allow them to ply. On the basis of the said applications, it appears, a note
was put up by the office to the Chairman of the Regional Transport
Authority (Transport Commissioner) who by his order dated December 19,
1991, cancelled the permits granted to the appellants. Against the order
cancelling their permits, the appellants approached the High Court by way
G
of C.W.P.No.4488 of 1992 which has been dismissed by the Division Bench
,. .., by its order dated December 16, 1993. This appeal is directed against the
said order.

Sri P. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the grant of permit to the appellants on the said route was in no way H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 2 S.C.R.

A affected by the stay order made by this court on February 7, 1991. None
of the aforesaid four writ petitions filed in this court concerned the said
route. The nearest that came to the appellant's route is the one concerned
in Writ Petition (C) No. 869 of 1990. But even that route only partly
overlapped the route on which the appellants were granted permits. Coun-
sel submitted further that the order of this court dated February 7, 1991
B prohibited only issue of permits but not the grant thereof. Indeed, the
clarificatory order made by this court on March 14, 1991 clearly says that
grant of permits on other route, i.e., routes other than the one concerned
in that writ petition (W.P.(C) No.869/90) was not prohibited. In any event,
the said writ petitions have been dismissed on November 22, 1991. If so,
c the cancellation of the petitioner's permit on the' ground that it was
violative of the orders of the stay granted by the Supreme Court is unsus-
tainable in law. Sri Chidambaram further submitted that the order of
cancellation dated December 19, 1991 was not passed by the Regional
Transport Authority but by the Chairman acting alone. Not only the
D Chairman acting alone is not entitled to review or cancel the orders made
by the Regional Transport Authority, the said .orders were passed without
even a notice to the appellants. The appellants went to the Regional
Transport Authority seeking permission to ply on the route; not only they
were not granted such permission, the very permits granted to them earlier
were cancelled. The procedure adopted is thus wholly unfair and contrary
E to the principles of natural justice, says the counsel.

Sri G .L. Sanghi, learned counsel appearing for the contesting
respondent justified and supported the order of the Supreme Court. Coun-
sel submitted that the order of stay granted by this court on February 7, ..
F 1991 prohibited the grant of permits as well as consideration of any further
applications for permits "on various routes concerned in these writ peti-
tions". Writ Petition (C) No.869 of 1990 pertained not only of to the route
Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Khandola-Issopurteel but also to "allied routes".
The petitioner in the said writ petition described the route concerned in
G the said writ petition in the: following words: "Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-
Khandola-Issopurteel and allied route (hereinafter called the extended
routes comprehending extension hereinafter referred to as the route)". The
orders made by this court should be understood in the light of the said
description and if so understood, it does take in the route on which the
appellants were granted permits. The grant of permits on February 11, 1991
H was, therefore, clearly in the teeth of the order made by this court. If there
'
MITHILESH v. TPT.AUTHORITY [JEEVANREDDY,J.] 321
)
{

was any doubt on the part of the Regional Transport Authority, it should A
have sought for clarification from this court instead of proceeding to grant
the permits. Indeed, on March 14, 1991, this court prohibited both the
grant and. the issue of new permits. The dismissal of the writ petibns on
November 22, 1991 does not in any manner validate an invalid and illegal
act. Counsel raised yet another contention, viz., that a portion of the said
route (on which the appellants have been granted permits) is overlapped
B
by a notified route. (He has filed a route-map according to which a portion
of the said route Muzaffernagar to Yamuna bridge overlaps the notified
route). Counsel placed strong reliance upon the Constitution Bench
decision of this Court in Adarsh Travels bus Service & Anr. v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors., [1985] 4 S.C.C. 557 to contend that such a grant is totally C
impermissible. Counsel pointed out that this was one of the grounds taken
in the order dated December 19. 1991 by which the permits granted to the
appellants were cancelled. The order dated December 19, 1991 was valid
order, says the counsel, and no notice to the appellants was required
inasmuch as it was an order passed on the application filed by the appel- D
!ants themselves. The said order was passed by the Chairman after discuss-
ing the matter with the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and must
be treated as the order of the Regional Transport Authority. '

We are of the opinion that the order of stay granted by this court on
February 7, 1991 did not preclude the grant of permits on the said route, E
on which the appellants were granted permits. The said route was not the
subject matter of any of the writ petitions filed in this court. The attempt
to bring in this route within the purview of the said stay order with
reference to the expression "allied routes" occurring in Writ Petition (C)
No.869 of 1990 is, in our opinion, a vain one. We have perused a copy of F
the original writ petition. Paragraph (1) of the writ petition reads as
follows:

"That the Petition is a citizen of India and is residing in India. In
the Meerut region of Meerut there is a route known as Muzaffar-
nagar Budhana-Khandola-Ishopurteel and allied routes G
(hereinafter called the extended routes) comprehending extension
(hereinafter referred to as the route) for plying of stage carriages
within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority Meerut
Region Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the RTA). The
petitioner is holding a permanent stage carriage permit on the H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 2 S.C.R.

A route and plying his stage carriage vehicle in accordance with the ·,'
conditions of the permit. 'The length of the route is 62 Kms.with
80 Kms. extensions and there are 84 buses covering the route in
rotation. The strength was increased in 1983."
,
A perusal of the said paragraph would show that the expression
B "allied routes" referred to the extensions of the route concerned therein.
The said expression cannot take in the concerned herein. No route-map
was also filed in the said writ petition from which it can be said that the
"allied routes" mentioned in the said writ petition included the route in
question herein. Both the orders of this court dated Februaiy 7, 1991 and
c March 14, 1991, therefore, did not pertain to the said route. In such a
situation, there could not have been any objection to the grant of permits
to the appellants on the said route. The High Court was in error in holding
that .the said grant was violative of the said order. lndeed, it does not say
so express. All that it says is that the said grant was made without showing
D due respect to the orders of this court. The more appropriate course for
the High Court was to have ascertained whether the said grant was contrary
to the orders of this court or not. If it was not violative of this court's order,
the grant could not have been held to be bad. Be that as it may, we are of
the opinion that the stay order made by this court and later clarified, did
in no way preclude the grant of permit to the appellants on the said route.
E It is also relevant to notice that the writ petitions were dismissed by thi•
court on November 22, 1991 and the cancellation was effected about a
month thereafter.

In view of our opinion aforesaid, it is not necessary to go into other
p grounds raised by Sri Chidambaram. ~

Sri Sanghi, learned counsel for the respondents placed strong
reliance upon the decision of this court in Adarsh Travels. Counsel sub-
mitted that inasmuch as a portion of the said route is overlapped by a
notified route, no permits could have been granted on the said route. It
G may be noticed at the outset that this aspect has not been considered by
the High Court in the order under appeal. No doubt, the Chairman of the
Regional Transport Authority in his order dated December 19,1991 does !"' ......
refer t9 this aspect but not fully. Copy of the approved scheme of draft
scheme, if any, has not been placed before us. We do not know what are
H the terms of the s.cheme(s). We do not know whether the scheme excludes
\
MITHILESH v. TPT.AUTHORITY [JEEVAN REDDY,J.J 323

the private operators wholly or partly. Another and more important cir- A
)
cumstance is that the State Transport Undertaking has not chosen to
challenge the grant of permits to the appellants. It is only the Respondents
3 and 4 who are operating on a route which partially overlaps the route
concerned herein that have chosen to come forward. We are not inclined
to entertain the said objection at their instance, more particularly, when a B
copy of the scheme(s) even has not been filed. This aspect would become
relevant if and when the State Transport Undertaking objects to the grant
of permits to the appellants and the approved scheme or draft scheme, as
the case may be, is placed before the court in support of the said objection.
In the present state of facts, we decline to go into the said question.

For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and
c
order of the Allahabad High Court impugned herein· is set aside. The
order of the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority dated December 19,
1991 cancelling the permits of the appellants is also set aside. There shall
be no order as to costs.
D
This order does not preclude the State Transport Undertaking or the
State of Uttar Pradesh from questioning the grant of permits to appellants
in accordance with law, if they are so advised.

A.G. Appeal allowed.
E