SMT. AFSAR JAHAN BEGUM ETC.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC.

                    SMT. AFSAR JAHAN BEGUM ETC.                                   A
                                      v.
             STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC.

                             JANUARY 11, 1996

              [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                              B

      Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 :

      S.102(2}--Approved scheme~od(fication of-Relaxation only to a
distance of 25 Kms. on nationalised routes to private operators under certain     C
conditions and restrictions--Operator on any route intersecting the notified
area to ply the vehicle strictly in conformity with the restrictive corridor
shelte~elaxation meant to subserve the public interest and not to sabotage
the approved scheme.

      Adarsh Travels Bus Service v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1985] 4 SCC 557,       D
relied on.

     CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 8475 of
1981 Etc.

      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)                            E

      S.K. Gambir, A.K. Pandey, R.P. Singh, H.K. Puri, B.S. Banthia S.K.
Agnihotri, A.K. Singhi (N.P.), T.C. Shanna (NP), Rajinder Narain & Co., for
the appearing parties.

      The Order of the Court was delivered :                                      F

      Substitution allowed in W.P. (C) No. 8330/81.

      All these writ petitions and appeal are disposed of by common judgment
since common question of law arises for decision is these cases.
                                                                                  G
       Admitted, the routes of which the petitioners/appellants are seeking to
intersect and ply their vehicles are notified routes. The notified routes were
published and became final under Chapter IV-A of Act 4, 1939. The Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 introduced Chapter VJ as a special provision relating to the
State transport undertakings. Section 99 authorises preparation and publica-      H
                                     387
      388                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1996] l S.C.R.
A   "' tion of the proposal regarding road transport service of a State transport
      undertaking. , Section 102 deals with cancellation or modification of the
      schemes. It provides that the State Government may, at any time, if it consider
      necessary in the public interest so to do, modify any approved scheme after
      giving : (i) the state transportundertaking; and (ii) any other person who in
B     the opinion of the State Government is likely to be affected by the proposed
      modification an opportunity of being heard in respect of the. proposed
      modification.

             Under sub-section (2), the State Government shall publish the modi-
      fication proposed under sub-section ( 1) in the State Gazette and in one of
C     the newspapers in the regional languages circulating in the area in which it
      is proposed to be covered by such modification together with the date not
      being less than 30 days from the publication in the official gazette, the time
      and place at which any representation received in this behalf will be heard
      by the State Government.
D
            While the appeals are pending, when it was brought to our notice that
      a proposal has been made by the State Government for modification of the
      approved schemes, by our order dated 1.11.1995, we have ordered that the
      learned counsel appearing for the State should verify and place before the
      Court whether the draft modification has been approved and published as
E     required under Section 102(2) of the Act and also to file an affidavit by a
      competent and responsible officer of the necessity to introduce the modifica-
      tion of the approved schemes and the action taken thereon. Pursuant thereto,
      the additional affidavit has been filed by K.K. Tiwari, R.T.O., Indore who has
      stated that the Government by notification dated 21.2.1991 relaxed only to a
F     distance of 25 kms. on the nationalised route to private operators under certain
      conditions and restrictions. The appellants are not entitled to the benefit of
      those corridor shelters now given under the modified scheme and relaxation
      granted under Section 102(2) of the Act. The petitioners, therefore, cannot
      claim the benefit of relaxation. They have stated in the notification thus :
G
               "'And, Whereas, the State Government in view of additional demand
               of transport services considers necessary in the public interest to allow
               private operators to ply on hire or reward stage carriages on routes
               covered by the said Schemes and for that purpose desires to modify
               all the said Schemes in the manner as shown in the Scheduled below:
H
                                 A.J. BEGUM (SMT.) v. STATE                          389
                                            SCHEDULE                                        A
                     In each of the said schemes, the following words figures and
, -I             brackets shall be added at the end, namely :

                 "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Scheme, the private
                 operators may be pennitted to ply stage-Carriages for hire or reward       B
                 subject to the following conditions, namely :

                 (I) Limit of exemption on notified route shall not exceed 25 Kifometers.

    _,           (2) The private operators shall ply the stage carriages over the
                 distance, other than the distance of the notified routes which shall not   c
                 be less than twice, the distance of the notified route covered by the
                 permit;

                 (3) Calculations of limit of exemption of 25 Kilometers on notified
                 route shall be made on the basis of total;
                                                                                            D
                 (4) This exemption shall be application to notified routes under all
I
    -'           Schemes, even though the Schemes might have been implemented
                 after 1979 ;

                 (5) The Private Operators shall not pick-up or set down passengers
                 on the notified route."
                                                                                            E

               In Adarash Travels Bus Service v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1985] 4 SCC
         557 a Constitution Bench of this Court considered Section 68-C, 68-0(3) and
         68-FF read with Section 2(28-A) of the Act 4, 1939 and had held that :
                                                                                            F
                 "Once a scheme is published under Section 68-D in relation to any
                 area or route or portion thereof, whether to the exclusion, complete
                 or partial of other persons or otherwise, no person other than the State
                 Transport Undertaking may operate on the notified area or notified
                 route except as provided in the scheme itself. A necessary conse-
                 quence of these provisions is that no private operate can operate his      G
                 vehicle on any part or portion of a notified area or notified route
                 unless authorised so to do by the terms of the scheme itself. He may
                 not operate on any part or portion of the notified route or area on the
                 mere ground that the pennit as originally granted to him covered the
                 notified route or area".                                                   H
    390                         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A         In this view of the matter, the only relaxation from the frozen notified
    route or area from the scheme is, as provided in the scheme itself. Every
    operator on any route intersecting the notified route, has, of necessity, to ply
    the vehicle strictly in conformity with the restrictive corridor shelter and no
    more. The relaxation is not meant to sabotage the approved scheme but to
B   subserve public interest.

           Shri Gambhir, learned counsel contended that in view of the relaxation
    upto a distance of 25 kms. been provided in the Scheme as modified and
    notified under Section 102(2) of the Act, all the petitioners are entitled to ply
    in the terms thereof. We cannot give any direction or relief to the petitioners
C   in these writ petitions. It is seen that the Government having approved the
    routes, have exercised the power under Section 102(2) of the Act and given
    benefit by intersecting the approved routes only upto a distance of 25 kms.
    without picking up or setting down the passengers on the notified route,
    strictly subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Under those
D   circumstances the petitioners cannot be given any relief. But if they have any
    right under the modified scheme, then that would be a matter appropriately to
    be gone into by the RTA or STA, as the case may be, after due notice to the
    State Transport Undertaking and all other interested persons.

           The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal,
E   is also dismissed. No costs.

    G.N.                                                        Petitions dismissed.