MOHD. SHAFIQ KHAN & ORS. ETC.,versusCOMPETENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ETC.

                MOHD. SHAFIQ KHAN & ORS. ETC.,                             A
                                      v.
              COMPETENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ETC.

                          NOVEMBER 27, 1987

          [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.]                         B

          Grant of authorisation certificate under U.P: Motor Vehicles
    (Special Provision) Act, 1976 for plying stage carriage vehicles on
    notified routes.

         The petitioners, holders of permanent stage carriage permits for C
    non-notified routes, filed applications under the U.P. Motor Vehicles
    (Special Provision) Act, 1976 for the grant of authorisation certificate
    for plying their stage carriage vehicles on Unnao-Kanpur and
    Lucknow/Barahanki notified routes. The applications were rejected.
    The petitioners moved the High Court for relief hy Writ Petitions. The
    High Court dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved, the petitioners D
•   moved this Court by petitions for special leave.

         Dismissing the petitions, the Court,

          HELD: The schemes notifying Unnao-Kanpur and Lucknow-
    Barabanki routes do not provides for and permit any private operator E
    to ply stage carriage vehicles on those routes. The Regional Transport
    Authority has no power to grant any stage carriage permit in respect
    of a notified route. No private operator is entitled to ply stage carriage
    vehicles on a notified route or a portion thereof unless authorised to
    do so by the terms of the scheme itself. If a private operator had no
    permit in respect of the notified route or a portion thereof on the date F
    of enforcement of the scheme. When the route is nationalised, he is not
    entitled to any authorization certificate. Also, the petitioners are not
    entitled to reply, for the purposes of grant of authorisation certificates
    under section 5 of the 1976 Act, on the stay orders issued by the High
    Court pending the writ petition filed by them, under which they had
)
    been plying their vehicles on the notified routes. All those Stay Orders G
    stood discharged on the dismissal of the writ petitions. [97 A; C; G I

           Adarsh Travels Bus Service and Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
     [1985] 4 SCC 557, Hindustan Transport Co. and Anr. v. State of U.P.
     & Ors., [1984] Sopp. SCC 22; and Sumer Chand Sharma and Anr. v.
     State of U.P. andAnr., (1985] 3 SCC 263, referred to.                   H
                                       95
     96                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [1988] 2 S.C.R.

 A         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
     (Civil) Nos. 8865-66 of 1987. etc.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.1987 of the Allahabad
     High Court in W.P. No. 2418/82 and WP'No. 3293 of 1980.

 8         V .J. Francis for the Petitioners.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered:

                                     ORDER

C       The petitioners held permanent stage carriage permits for non-
  notified routes. They made applications to the competent authority
  under the U .P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provision) Act, 1976 for
  grant of authorisation certificate permitting· them to ply their stage
  carriage vehicles on Unnao-Kanpur and Lucknow-Barabanki notified
  routes. The competent authority rejected their applications, there-
0 upon they filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution
  challenging the validity of the order of the competent authority. A         '
  Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench)
  dismissed the writ petitions by its order dated 2.4.1987 on the ground
  that the petitioners were not entitled to any authorisation certificate
  under the U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provision) Act 1976 as none              l
E of them held permits for plying their vehicles on the aforesaid
  notified routes on the date the routes were notified. Aggrieved, the
  petitioners have filed these special leave petitions against the order of
  the High Court.

        After hearing learned counsel for the pet1t1oners we are of
f'opinion that there is no merit in these petitions. There is no dispute
  that Unnao-Kanpur and Lucknow-Barabanki are notified routes and
  the relevant schemes do not permit any private operator to ply stage
  carriage vehicles on those routes or any portion thereof. The
  Regional Transport Authority has no power to grant any stage
  carriage permit in respect of a notified route or any part thereof. No
O private operator is entitled to ply stage carriage vehicles on a notified
  route of a portion thereof unless authorised to do so by the terms of
  the schem~ itself. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Adarash            )
  Travels Bus Service & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1985] 4 SCC 557
  made this position clear. The Court held that no operator is entitled
  to ply on any portion of a notified route even it the operator does not
H pick up and set down any passengers on the overlapping portions of a
    MOHD. SHAF!Q v. COMPETENT AUTIIORITY (VENKATARAMIAH,J.]           97

    notified route. The schemes notifing Unnao-Kanpur and Lucknow- A
    Barabanki do not provide for plying of vehicles of a private operator
)   on those routes. No permit could therefore be granted to any private
    operator by extending the non-notified route, or by including a
    portion of the aforesaid notified route in his permit. The competent
    authority constituted under the U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provi-
    sion) Act 1976 has power to grant authorisation certificate to a B
(   private operator under Section 5 of the Act permitting him to ply on
    a notified route or portion thereof. This Court has held in Hindustan




~
    Transport Co. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1984] (Supp.) SCC 22
    that the competent authority has jurisdiction to grant authorisation
    certificate only to those operators who held permit for the route or
    portion thereof on the date the scheme under Chapter IV A was
    enforced. If a private operator had no permit in respect of the noti-
                                                                             c
    fied route or a portion thereof on the date of the enforcement of the
    scheme, he is not entitled to any authorisation certificate. We are in
    agreement with the view taken in Sumer Chand Sharma & Anr. v.
     State of U.P. & Anr., [1986] 3 SCC 263. Since none of the petitioners
     held permits in respect of the disputed notified routes on the date the D
     routes were nationalised they are not entitled to grant of authori-
     sation certificate.

           If any proceeding is taken or writ petition is filed challenging a
    scheme of nationalisation by the existing operators of the route or
    portion thereof and if during the pendency of such proceedings or E
    writ petition, interim orders are granted permitting the private
    operators to ply their stage carriages on the route covered by the
    scheme, it will not confer any right on the private operator to claim
    authorisation certificate under Section 5 of the U.P. Act 27 of 1976 in
    the event of failure of challenge to the validity of the scheme or
    dismissal of the writ petition. Section 5 of the U.P. Act 27 of 1976 F
    contemplates grant of authorisation certificate in favour of an
    operator who may have been plying on the notified route or portion
    thereof under a permit granted to him by the Regional Transport
    Authority or the State Transport Authority or Commission. This
    benefit cannot be extended to an operator who may be plying under
    interim orders of a Court or authority without there being any permit G
    in his favour. The petitioners had been plying their vehicles on the
    notified routes under stay orders issued by the High Court pending
    writ petitions filed by them. All those stay orders stood discharged on
     the dismissal of their writ petitions. Therefore petitioners are not
     entitled to rely on these orders and on the fact that they were running
     motor vehicles pursuant to the said orders for the purposes of grant H
   98                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [1988] 2 S.C.R.

A of authorisation certificate under Section 5 of the 1976 Act. The
  petitioners contend that they are entitled to obtain authorisation
  certificate from the competent authority under Section 5 of the Act as
  they had permit on July 1, 1976 the date on which the U.P. Act 27 of
  1976 came into force. We find no merit in this submission in view of
  the decision of this Court in Sumer Chand's case (supra).
B
          The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.

   S.L.                                                Petitions dismissed.




                                                                              l




                                                                              •