Holding

A stage‑carriage permit cannot be granted to a private operator on an inter‑State route that overlaps a notified intra‑State route unless the IS‑RT Agreement expressly excludes the overlap and the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is demonstrably wound up; otherwise, Chapter VI schemes override Section 88.

Summary

The case concerned whether private operators could be granted stage‑carriage permits on inter‑State routes that overlapped portions of intra‑State routes notified under a scheme under Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in light of an Inter‑State Reciprocal Transport (IS‑RT) Agreement executed under Section 88. The petitioners, private operators, sought mandamus directing the Uttar Pradesh State Transport Authority to countersign permits issued by Madhya Pradesh, arguing that the IS‑RT Agreement converted de‑notified routes into Schedule A and that the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation had been wound up. The UPSRTC contended that Chapter VI schemes override Section 88 and that private operators are excluded from notified routes unless the scheme expressly permits them. The Court examined the statutory hierarchy, the nature of IS‑RT Agreements, and precedent that schemes under Chapter VI prevail over inter‑State agreements, emphasizing that any exclusion must be expressly stated. It held that without clear evidence of the Madhya Pradesh corporation’s winding up and absent an express exclusion in the scheme, private operators could not be granted permits. Consequently, the High Court’s order granting relief was set aside, the civil appeals were allowed, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Can a stage‑carriage permit be granted to a private operator on an inter‑State route under an IS‑RT Agreement when that route overlaps a notified intra‑State route?
Does an IS‑RT Agreement under Section 88 of the 1988 Motor Vehicles Act override the scheme and notified routes under Chapter VI?
Is the winding up of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation a prerequisite for private operators to obtain such permits?

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 100, s. 63(3-A), s. 63(3-B), s. 68-B, s. 68-C, s. 68-D, s. 68-E, s. 68-F, s. 97, s. 98, s. 99
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 100, s. 102, s. 103, s. 88, s. 98, s. 99

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether a stage carriage permit can be granted to a private operator on an inter-State route in terms of an IS-RT Agreement-Inter-State Reciprocal Transport Agreement executed by and between two of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 when portion of such inter-State route is common to intra-State route which has been notified in terms of a scheme approved per the provisions of Chapter VI of the MV Act. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.88 – Validation of permits for use

Subjects

stage carriage permitprivate operatorinter‑State routeIS‑RT Agreementintra‑State routeMotor Vehicles ActChapter VI schemepublic interest

Judgment

[2025] 11 S.C.R. 379 : 2025 INSC 1281

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
Through Its Chief General Manager
v.
Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 10522 of 2025)
04 November 2025
[Dipankar Datta* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether a stage carriage permit can be granted to
a private operator on an inter-State route in terms of an IS-RT
Agreement-Inter-State Reciprocal Transport Agreement executed
by and between two neighbouring States u/s.88 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 when portion of such inter-State route is common
to intra-State route which has been notified in terms of a scheme
approved per the provisions of Chapter VI of the MV Act.

Headnotes†
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.88 – Validation of permits for
use outside region in which granted – In terms of IS-RT
agreement between the State Transport Authority-STA, UP and
MP u/s.88, the MPSTA had exclusive right to operate buses on
inter-State routes specified in Schedule B of the IS-RT
Agreement and Schedule A earmarked routes exclusively
for plying of stage carriages by private operators – Allegedly
MPSRTC had been wound up and, thus, it stopped plying
buses on these routes which came to be de-notified – Private
operators claimed that routes specified in Schedule B be
converted and included in Schedule A so that they could be
selected and issued permits to ply stage carriages on the
routes mentioned in Schedule A – To operate stage carriages
on the routes mentioned in Schedule B, which stood de-
notified, the private operators applied for and were granted
temporary permits by the STA, MP, however, the STA, UP
refused to counter-sign these permits – Writ petition by the
aggrieved seeking mandamus to the STA, UP to grant counter

* Author
380 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

signature on the permits issued by the STA, MP – High Court
directed the State of MP to initiate proceedings to grant
permanent stage carriage permits for the routes mentioned
in Schedule B of the IS-RT Agreement, and to complete the
proceedings and thereafter, the State of UP was directed to
countersign the permits – Challenge to:
Held: Grant of relief to the private operators seems well-nigh
impossible unless of course MPSRTC is clearly shown to have
been wound up – IS-RT Agreement by its very nature is an
agreement between two States but not a law under the relevant
MV Act – Approved schemes and notified routes, which are
envisaged in Chapter VI, would obviously override s.88, in view
of s.98 – Plying of a stage carriage by a private operator on an
inter-State route, which happens to overlap a part of a notified
intra-State route, should be expressly excluded by incorporating
requisite recitals in the IS-RT Agreement, which is subsequent
in point of time, because no such agreement can surface in the
absence of consensus between two neighbouring States – Once
two States hold talks for formulating and opening up routes for
plying of stage carriages connecting cities/towns in such States
on reciprocal basis and reduce the agreed terms to a written
agreement, which is also given wide publicity to remove any
possible hurdles, there is a presupposition of various objects and
purposes having been factored therein, which undoubtedly have
serving public interest at the forefront – If the two reciprocating
States fail to notice that the services to be introduced would
face road-blocks because certain inter-State routes overlap a
few intra-State routes, public interest is rendered a casualty and
thereby, the whole object and purpose of the IS-RT Agreement
would be frustrated and lost in the process – Apparent lack of
application of mind and of purpose by the States of UP and
MP noticed which have dented the prospect of maximisation
of public interest consequent upon introduction of a few of the
inter-State routes overlapping part of routes notified in favour of
the UPSRTC – Much was expected of the States of UP and MP
as well as the UPRSTC to protect the interest of the passengers
and commuters, which unfortunately has not fructified – While no
permission can be granted at this stage to any private operator
having a permit issued by the STA, MP to ply his vehicle on
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 381

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through
Its Chief General Manager v. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors.

an inter-State route connecting two cities in the neighbouring
States, which overlaps any notified intra-State route in the State
of UP, much can be achieved through dialogue between the two
States – Stage carriage services are provided for the benefit of
a vast cross-section of the population and subjecting them to
inconvenience would amount to disservice by the States of MP
and UP – After all, an inference can legitimately be drawn that
the STA, MP having issued permits to private operators on routes
hitherto before reserved for the MPSRTC, the same might not
have been possible if the MPSRTC had been plying its vehicles on
such routes – However, terms of the IS-RT Agreement specifically
required the MPSRTC to be wound up for the private operators
to stake claims for obtaining permits on routes earmarked for
it – Though not been conclusively established that the MPSRTC
has been wound up, an opportunity ought to be extended to
establish it and if proved, at least an attempt ought to be made
to fully work out the IS-RT Agreement with modifications which
itself contemplates that such a modification could be made –
Principal Secretaries of the Transport Departments of the States
of MP and UP, to meet mutually within the stipulated period to
discuss the modalities for fully working out the IS-RT Agreement.
[Paras 43-50]

Case Law Cited
Adarsh Travels Bus Services v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1985] Supp.
3 SCR 661 : (1985) 4 SCC 557; T.V. Nataraj v. State of Karnataka
[1993] Supp. 3 SCR 957 : (1994) 2 SCC 32 – relied on.
Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India [1991] Supp. 2 SCR 428 :
(1992) 1 SCC 168; T.N. Raghunatha Reddy v. Mysore State
Transport Authority [1970] 3 SCR 780 : (1970) 1 SCC 541; S.
Abdul Khader Saheb v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal
[1973] 2 SCR 925 : (1973) 1 SCC 357; Mysore SRTC v. Mysore
Revenue Appellate Tribunal [1975] 1 SCR 493 : (1975) 4 SCC
192; Mysore SRTC v. Mysore STAT [1975] 1 SCR 615 : (1974)
2 SCC 750 – referred to.

List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
382 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

List of Keywords
Stage carriage permit; Private operator; Inter-State route;
IS-RT Agreement-Inter-State Reciprocal Transport Agreement;
Neighbouring States; Intra-State route; Validation of permits.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10522
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.2014 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in WP No. 8678 of 2013
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 10523, 10524 and 13388 of 2025 and Writ
Petition (C) No. 748 of 2024

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ms. Shobha Gupta, Mrs. Garima Prashad, Sr. Advs., Ankit
Anandraj Shah, Arpit Bamal, Vaibhav Pareek, Tarun Arora, Gitesh
Marwah, B S Rajesh Agrajit, Ms. Priya Nagar, Siddharth Goswami,
Mrs. Meetu Goswami, Ms. Shambhavi Jaiswal, Shyamal Kumar,
Ms. Apoorva Pal, Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms. Deepti
Rathi, Ms. Nidhi Singh, Ms. Upasna Agrawal, Mrs. Upasna Agrawal,
Shrey Kapoor.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Nachiketa Joshi, Ms. Sansriti Pathak, A.A.Gs., Ms. Shobha Gupta,
Nikhil Goel, Mrs. Garima Prashad, N K Mody, Sr. Advs., Ankit
Anandraj Shah, Gitesh Marwah, Tarun Arora, Vaibhav Pareek,
Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Jay Veer Singh, Hiesh Kumar Sharma, Amit
Kumar Chawla, Akhileshwar Jha, Ms. Swati Vishan, Vikal P. Gupta,
Deepkaran Dalal, Milind Kumar, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Padmesh
Mishra, Yashraj Singh Bundela, Pradeep Misra, Manoj Kumar
Mishra, Daleep Dhyani, Suraj Singh, Ms. Shagufa Khan, Aman
Prasad, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Rohit Amit Sthalekar, Grish Malviya,
Purnendu Bajpai, Shashank Singh, Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka
Mittal, Ms. Deepti Rathi, Ms. Nidhi Singh, Ms. Upasna Agrawal,
Shrey Kapoor, Abhay Singh, Ms. Ankita Agarwal, Shishir Kumar
Saxena, R N Pareek, Ankur Parihar, Anupam Raina, Rohit Amit
Sthalekar, Grish Malviya, Purnendu Bajpai, Shashank Singh, Prithvi
Pal, Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Bhupinder Yadav.
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 383

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through
Its Chief General Manager v. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Dipankar Datta, J.

Introduction
1. The Motor Vehicles Act of 19391 was a legislation dealing with a
host of matters of everyday concern related to use of motor vehicles
till its repeal in 1988. It dealt with matters concerning various kinds
of motor vehicles, its registration, license to drive and operate,
insurance, road rules, traffic control, control of public transport, the
transport authorities, the necessity to obtain permits, inter-State
reciprocal transport agreements, State Road Transport Corporations2,
compensation in case of road accidents caused by errant vehicles
by a duly constituted tribunal and so on. After almost 60 (sixty) years
of its existence, the Parliament introduced the 1988 MV Act w.e.f. 1st
July, 1988. The 1988 MV Act is more or less like its precursor but
with certain additional provisions to tackle modern day challenges.
Spread over 15 chapters, the 1988 MV Act is considered to be a
complete code in itself for anything and everything related to motor
vehicles. One notable feature of the 1988 MV Act is that it brought
about a sea change in the policy regarding grant of permits for plying
stage carriages on intra-Region, inter-Region and inter-State routes.
Challenge to the liberalized policy of grant of permits came up for
consideration before a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Mithilesh
Garg v. Union of India3. This Court held that the policy neither
infringed Article 14 nor Article 19 rights of existing operators.
2. In these appeals arising out of judgment(s) and order(s) of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh4 and the sole writ petition under Article
32 of the Constitution seeking enforcement of rights guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(g) thereof, we too are concerned with grant of
permits but on certain inter-State routes which overlap portions of
certain intra-State notified routes. Thus, Chapter V of the 1988 MV

1 1939 MV Act
2 SRTCs
3 (1992) 1 SCC 168
4 High Court
384 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Act titled Control of Transport Vehicles and Chapter VI thereof
titled Special Provisions Relating to State Transport Undertakings
and V form the focal point of our consideration.
3. Delay in presenting SLP (C) Diary No. 29083 of 2018 is condoned.
Leave granted.

The Impugned Orders

Impugned order in Civil Appeal No.10522 – 10523 of 2025
4. Kashmiri Lal Batra5, approached the High Court, Bench at Gwalior,
in its public interest litigation jurisdiction by filing a writ petition6,
inter alia, seeking a mandamus to the respondents to countersign
permits granted by the State Transport Authority of Madhya Pradesh7.
The respondents before the High Court were the state transport
authorities/departments of the States of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar
Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Haryana.
5. The case pleaded in the writ petition by Kashmiri Lal reveals that
in terms of an inter-State reciprocal transport agreement dated 21st
November, 20068 executed by and between the STA, MP and the
State Transport Authority, Uttar Pradesh9 under Section 88 of the
1988 MV Act, the Madhya Pradesh State Transport Corporation10
had exclusive right to operate buses on inter-State routes specified
in Schedule B of the IS-RT Agreement. Schedule A of the IS-RT
Agreement earmarked routes exclusively for plying of stage carriages
by private operators.
6. It was alleged that MPSRTC had been wound up and, thus, it stopped
plying buses on these routes which came to be de-notified. Clause
4(3) of the IS-RT Agreement provided that once de-notified, the routes
in Schedule B would be deemed to be included in Schedule A. The
private operators had claimed that routes specified in Schedule B be
converted and included in Schedule A so that they could be selected

5 Kashmiri Lal
6 WP No.8678 of 2013 (PIL)
7 STA, MP
8 IS-RT Agreement
9 STA, UP
10 MPSRTC
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 385

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through
Its Chief General Manager v. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors.

and issued permits to ply stage carriages on the routes mentioned
in Schedule A, subject to provisions of the 1988 MV Act.
7. To operate stage carriages on the routes mentioned in Schedule B,
which stood de-notified, the private operators applied for and were
granted temporary permits by the STA, MP. However, the STA, UP
refused to counter-sign these permits.
8. Aggrieved by refusal of the STA, UP, as aforesaid, Kashmiri Lal
approached the High Court seeking, inter alia, a mandamus to the
STA, UP to grant countersignature on the permits issued by the STA,
MP. The High Court, vide the impugned order11, directed the State of
Madhya Pradesh12 to initiate proceedings to grant permanent stage
carriage permits for the routes mentioned in Schedule B of the IS-RT
Agreement, and to complete the proceedings within 2 months from
the date of the order. Within 15 days thereafter, the State of Uttar
Pradesh13 was directed to countersign the permits.
9. Dissatisfied with the direction of the High Court contained in the
impugned order, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation14
has carried it to this Court in the lead appeal by special leave.
10. The same order is under challenge in the connected appeal, at the
instance of Pankaj Pandey, Manohar Sharma, and Kuldeep Sharma.

Impugned order in Civil Appeal No.10524 of 2025
11. Guruprit Singh and Seema Arora, the respondents in the civil appeal,
presented a writ petition15 before the High Court alleging that though
they possessed the requisite permit to ply a stage carriage from
Gwalior to Chandigarh under the IS-RT Agreement, the Transport
Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh was not permitting them
to park their vehicle at the respective bus stops.
12. A Single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 27th February,
2017, disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the permit
holders/ petitioners to approach the Depot Manager, Agra, who

11 dated 26th November, 2014 in W.P. 8678/2013 (PIL)
12 State of MP
13 State of UP
14 UPSRTC
15 WP No.8703/2016
386 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

was then directed to decide the issue and give effect to the permit
in accordance with the IS-RT Agreement, and also observed that
pending such consideration, there would be no hindrance caused
for the pick-up and drop services.
13. Challenging this order, the UPSRTC preferred a writ appeal16 before
a Division Bench of the High Court, claiming that it was beyond the
territorial jurisdiction of the Single Judge to issue a mandamus when
no cause of action arose in the State of MP. Rejecting the writ appeal,
the Division Bench vide order dated 11th December, 2017 held that
the State of UP had an obligation under the IS-RT Agreement and, as
such, it was within the jurisdiction of the Single Judge to have issued
the direction it did; consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed.
14. The order dated 11th December, 2017 is under challenge in the
connected appeal by special leave.

Impugned order in SLP (C) Diary No.29083 of 2018
15. Javed Akhtar, the petitioner before the High Court in a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution, sought a mandamus to the
UPSRTC to permit parking of his vehicle as well as pick-up and
drop of passengers in terms of the IS-RT Agreement and the permit
granted to him on the route Chhatarpur to Kanpur.
16. Relying on the order dated 27th February, 201717, as confirmed by
the order dated 11th December, 201718 passed by a co-ordinate
bench of the High Court, the directions therein were made applicable
mutatis mutandis.

Writ Petition No. 748 of 2024
17. Operators of 3 (three) stage carriages on the routes Shahdol to
Allahabad, Sidhi to Varanasi and Rewa to Allahabad have presented
the writ petition seeking similar and identical relief as were sought
before the High Court by the petitioners therein, noted above. The
respondents are the STA, MP and the STA, UP, among others. In
essence, the petition seeks a mandamus to the STA, UP to counter-

16 Writ Appeal No. 189/17
17 Guruprit Singh and Anr. v. UPSRTC and Ors. in Writ Petition No. 8703 of 2016
18 UPSRTC and Ors. v. Gurupurit Singh and Ors. in Writ Appeal No. 189 of 2017
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 387

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through
Its Chief General Manager v. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors.

sign the stage carriage permits issued to the petitioners, under the
IS-RT Agreement.

Arguments of the Parties
18. We have heard Ms. Garima Prashad, learned senior counsel for
the appellant, i.e., the UPSRTC; Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for
the State of UP, and Ms. Shobha Gupta, learned senior counsel
and Mr. B S Rajesh Agrajit, learned counsel for the respondents/
petitioners, being the private operators who are holders of permit
issued by the STA, MP.
19. Ms. Prashad objected to maintainability of the public interest litigation
before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on the ground that Kashmiri
Lal had been set up as a petitioner by the permit holders to espouse
their cause and his writ petition, lacking in bona fides, ought to have
been summarily dismissed. On merits, she claimed that no private
operator has a right to ply a stage carriage even on an inter-State
route, a portion whereof is common to a notified route being part of
an approved scheme under Chapter VI of the 1988 MV Act, except
to the extent allowed by such scheme; hence, there was no question
of private permit holders being permitted to ply on portions of routes
which are part of notified routes. Multiple authorities were cited by
her to support her contention.
20. Mr. Mishra adopted the submissions of Ms. Prashad.
21. Per contra, Ms. Gupta and Mr. Agrajit for the rival parties, i.e., the
permit holders, were quite vocal in their claim that although the
UPSRTC would have been justified in resisting their claims so long
the MPSRTC were plying its stage carriages on the inter-State routes,
but now that the MPSRTC had been wound up, the terms of the
IS-RT Agreement binds the State of UP; and since such agreement
permits issuance of inter-State permits to private operators on routes
mentioned in Schedule B thereof and permits having been issued
by the STA, MP in favour of the private operators following due
procedure laid down in the 1988 MV Act, it is the duty of the State of
UP to ensure that the terms of the IS-RT Agreement are given effect
particularly when it is a party to it. According to the private permit
holders, neither the STA, UP nor the UPSRTC has any authority or
jurisdiction in law to nullify such a binding agreement.
388 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

22. Drawing our attention to the proviso to Section 100 of the 1988
MV Act, it has been contended that no approval of the Central
Government has been placed on record by the State of UP, or for
that matter, by the UPSRTC. In the absence of such an approval,
question of any route being notified does not and cannot arise and
hence, the arguments advanced on behalf of the UPSRTC and the
State of UP lack substance.

Question for decision
23. The civil appeals and the writ petition under consideration seem to
raise a substantial question of law. It is: whether a stage carriage
permit can be granted to a private operator on an inter-State route
in terms of an IS-RT Agreement executed by and between two
neighbouring States under Section 88 of the 1988 MV Act when
portion of such inter-State route is common to an intra-State route
which has been notified in terms of a scheme approved per the
provisions of Chapter VI of the 1988 MV Act19?

The Relevant Law
24. It would be profitable to read the provisions of the 1988 MV Act
which have a material bearing on the question arising for decision
in this set of matters. Chapters V of the 1988 Act contains Section
88 while Chapter VI thereof contains special provisions for the road
transport undertakings.
25. The law relating to IS-RT Agreement appears in sub-sections (5)
and (6) of Section 88 reading as follows:
Section 88. Validation of permits for use outside region
in which granted.-
***
5) Every proposal to enter into an agreement between the
States to fix the number of permits which is proposed to
be granted or countersigned in respect of each route or
area, shall be published by each of the State Governments

19 approved scheme
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 389

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through
Its Chief General Manager v. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors.

concerned in the Official Gazette and in any one or more of
the newspapers in regional language circulating in the area
or route proposed to be covered by the agreement together
with a notice of the date before which representations in
connection therewith may be submitted, and the date not
being less than thirty days from the date of publication in
the Official Gazette, on which, and the authority by which,
and the time and place at which, the proposal and any
representation received in connection therewith will be
considered.
Corresponding Law: S. 63(3-A) of the 1939 MV Act
(6) Every agreement arrived at between the States shall,
in so far as it relates to the grant of countersignature of
permits, be published by each of the State Governments
concerned in the Official Gazette and in any one or more
of the newspapers in the regional language circulating in
the area or route covered by the agreement and the State
Transport Authority of the State and the Regional Transport
Authority concerned shall give effect to it.
Corresponding Law: S. 63(3-B) of the 1939 MV Act
26. Chapter VI comprises of 9 (nine) sections of which the first 6 (six) are
required to be read for resolving the controversy under consideration.
They read as follows:
97. Definition.—In this Chapter, unless the context
otherwise requires, “road transport service” means a
service of motor vehicles carrying passengers or goods
or both by road for hire or reward.
Corresponding Law: S. 68-A of the 1939 MV Act
98. Chapter to override Chapter V and other laws.—The
provisions of this Chapter and the rules and orders made
thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter V or in any
other law for the time being in force or in any instrument
having effect by virtue of any such law.
Corresponding Law: S. 68-B of the 1939 MV Act
390 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

99. Preparation and publication of proposal
regarding road transport service of a State transport
undertaking.—
(1) Where any State Government is of opinion that for the
purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and
properly co-ordinated road transport service, it is necessary
in the public interest that road transport services in general
or any particular class of such service in relation to any area
or route or portion thereof should be run and operated by
the State transport undertaking, whether to the exclusion,
complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise, the
State Government may formulate a proposal regarding
a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the services
proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be
covered and other relevant particulars respecting thereto
and shall publish such proposal in the Official Gazette of
the State formulating such proposal and in not less than
one newspaper in the regional language circulating in the
area or route proposed to be covered by such scheme
and also in such other manner as the State Government
formulating such proposal deem fit.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),
when a proposal is published under that sub-section, then
from the date of publication of such proposal, no permit
shall be granted to any person, except a temporary permit
during the pendency of the proposal and such temporary
permit shall be valid only for a period of one year from the
date of its issue or till the date of final publication of the
scheme under Section 100, whichever is earlier.
Corresponding Law: S. 68-C of the 1939 MV Act

100. Objection to the proposal.—
(1) On the publication of any proposal regarding a scheme
in the Official Gazette and in not less than one newspaper
in the regional language circulating in the area or route
which is to be covered by such proposal any person
may, within thirty days from the date of its publication in
the Official Gazette, file objections to it before the State
Government.
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 391

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through
Its Chief General Manager v. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors.

(2) The State Government may, after considering the
objections and after giving an opportunity to the objector
or his representatives and the representatives of the State
transport undertaking to be heard in the matter, if they so
desire, approve or modify such proposal.
(3) The scheme relating to the proposal as approved or
modified under sub-section (2) shall then be published
in the Official Gazette by the State Government making
such scheme and in not less than one newspaper in the
regional language circulating in the area or route covered
by such scheme and the same shall thereupon become
final on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette
and shall be called the approved scheme and the area or
route to which it relates shall be called the notified area
or notified route:
Provided that no such scheme which relates to any
inter-State route shall be deemed to be an approved
scheme unless it has the previous approval of the Central
Government.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section,
where a scheme is not published as an approved scheme
under sub-section (3) in the Official Gazette within a
period of one year from the date of publication of the
proposal regarding the scheme in the Official Gazette
under sub-section (1), the proposal shall be deemed to
have lapsed.
Explanation.—In computing the period of one year referred
to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which
the publication of the approved scheme under sub-section
(3) was held up on account of any stay or injunction by
the order of any Court shall be excluded.
Corresponding Law: S. 68-D of the 1939 MV Act

102. Cancellation or modification of scheme.—
(1) The State Government may, at any time, if it considers
necessary, in the public interest so to do, modify any
approved scheme after giving—
392 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(i) the State transport undertaking; and
(ii) any other person who, in 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.
(2) The State Government shall publish any modification
proposed under sub-section (1) in the Official Gazette
and in one of 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 thirty days from such publication in the
Official Gazette, and the time and place at which any
representation received in this behalf will be heard by the
State Government.
Corresponding Law: S. 68-E of the 1939 MV Act

103. Issue of permits to State transport undertakings.—
(1) Where, in pursuance of an approved scheme, any State
transport undertaking applies in such manner as may be
prescribed by the State Government in this behalf for a stage
carriage permit or a goods carriage permit or a contract
carriage permit in respect of a notified area or notified route,
the State Transport Authority in any case where the said
area or route lies in more than one region and the Regional
Transport Authority in any other case shall issue such permit
to the State transport undertaking, notwithstanding anything
to the contrary contained in Chapter V.
(2) For the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme
in respect of a notified area or notified route, the State
Transport Authority or, as the case may be, the Regional
Transport Authority concerned may, by order,—
(a) refuse to entertain any application for the grant or
renewal of any other permit or reject any such application
as may be pending;
(b) cancel any existing permit;
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 393

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through
Its Chief General Manager v. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors.

(c) modify the terms of any existing permit so as to—
(i) render the permit ineffective beyond a specified date;
(ii) reduce the number of vehicles authorised to be used
under the permit;
(iii) curtail the area or route covered by the permit insofar
as such permit relates to the notified area or notified route.
(3) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no
appeal shall lie against any action taken, or order passed,
by the State Transport Authority or any Regional Transport
Authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2).
Corresponding Law: S. 68-F of the 1939 MV Act

Relevant Decisions on the Point
27. There are multiple decisions of this Court declaring the law that
private operators can be completely excluded from plying their stage
carriages on notified routes and/or part of a notified route. However,
there are at least 5/6 (five/six) decisions of this Court which seem
to us to have a direct bearing on the question arising for decision
vis-à-vis the situation of the nature that is projected before us.
28. As the ensuing discussion would unfold, there is a decision of a
coordinate Bench which supports the contentions raised by Kashmiri
Lal and the permit holders. This coordinate Bench decision, however,
is contrary to the law laid down in two/three previous three-Judge
bench decisions. However, a subsequent larger Bench decision
did not agree with the said coordinate Bench decision. The said
larger Bench decision has since been approved by a subsequent
Constitution Bench decision. The sixth decision, also of a coordinate
Bench, followed the decisions of the larger Bench and the Constitution
Bench since it was bound by the same. Thus, the question, which
we are tasked to answer appears to be no longer res integra in view
of all these decisions of this Court rendered by larger/Constitution
Benches, which too are equally binding on us.
29. We may now proceed to note the precedents in the field in seriatim
most of which, coincidentally, arose from proceedings in the erstwhile
State of Mysore.
394 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

30. The first decision on the point to be noted is that of a three-Judge
Bench in T.N. Raghunatha Reddy v. Mysore State Transport
Authority20. It was held there that:
“16. Regarding the third point we were unable to appreciate
how an inter-State agreement overrides the provisions of
Chapter IV-A. The inter-state agreement is not law and to
hold that an inter-State agreement overrides Chapter IV-A
would be to completely disregard the provisions of Section
68-B of the Act which provides that ‘the provisions of this
Chapter and the rules and orders made thereunder shall
have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
contained in Chapter IV of this Act or in any other law for
the time being in force or in any instrument having effect
by virtue of any such law’. …”.
31. The next decision of relevance is S. Abdul Khader Saheb v. Mysore
Revenue Appellate Tribunal21. Accepting the law laid down in
T.N. Raghunatha Reddy (supra), it was held there that an IS-RT
Agreement is an agreement between two States and, therefore, not a
law. Thus, a scheme of nationalisation approved under Section 68-D
of the 1939 MV Act would prevail over an inter-State agreement in
respect of an inter-State route. The relevant passage is extracted
hereunder:
“6. The next point on which a great deal of emphasis has
been laid on behalf of the appellant is that an inter-State
route comes into existence by virtue of an agreement
between the States through which the route passes. The
main provisions in that respect are to be found in Section
63 of the Act. Any scheme of nationalisation of a route by
a State, as approved under Section 68-D, cannot override
the inter-State agreements in respect of the inter-State
routes. This Court has in T.N. Raghunatha Reddy v. Mysore
State Transport Authority answered this question in the
negative. It has been held that the inter-State agreement
is not law and to hold that an inter-State agreement
overrides Chapter IV-A would be to completely disregard

20 (1970) 1 SCC 541
21 (1973) 1 SCC 357
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 395

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through
Its Chief General Manager v. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors.

the provisions of Section 68-B of the Act. In other words
a scheme of nationalisation approved under Section 68-D
would prevail over an inter-State agreement in respect of
an inter-State route.”
32. In Mysore SRTC v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal22 [Mysore
SRTC (I)], a coordinate Bench of this Court formulated the question
as under:
“Can a permit be granted to an inter-State Transport Operator
for the whole of his route despite the fact that a part of the
route overlaps a part of a notified intra-State route?”
33. The coordinate Bench examined three schemes framed under Section
68-C of the 1939 MV Act which, in some manner, partly overlapped the
notified intra-State routes. It was held that though the State has power
under Section 68-C to totally exclude private operators (including
inter-State operators) from notified routes, such exclusion must be
expressed clearly in the scheme itself. A mere physical overlap of
routes is insufficient unless a scheme unequivocally prohibits inter-
State operators from even traversing overlapping portions. In such
case, the private operators cannot be denied permits. It was observed
that if the intent was such as to exclude the routes which happened
to overlap, they should have been mentioned in the scheme. Thus,
the permits granted either by the Regional Transport Office or the
State Appellate Authority were upheld.
34. The next decision was rendered by a 3-Judge Bench in Mysore
SRTC v. Mysore STAT23 [Mysore SRTC (II)]. There, the Mysore
State Road Transport Corporation plied buses on a route notified
under Chapter IV of the 1939 MV Act. It objected to renewal of permit
to one C. Abdul Rahim on the ground that the permit so sought,
would overlap 3 miles of the notified route. The Regional Transport
Authority granted permit by negativing the contention of overlap.
While granting the permit, the Authority held that the notified route
is not affected if the distance of the overlapping portion is less than
five miles and if a condition not to pick up or set down passengers
on the notified route is attached.

22 (1975) 4 SCC 192
23 (1974) 2 SCC 750
396 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

35. Appeal against the grant of permit failed before the State Transport
Authority, whereafter there was an unsuccessful challenge in a writ
petition before the Karnataka High Court (then Mysore High Court).
36. The larger Bench of this Court in Mysore SRTC (II) (supra)
distinguished Mysore SRTC (I) (supra) holding that it was a case
concerning inter-State routes whereas in the present case, the case
concerned intra-State routes and, thus, proceeded to examine the
issue.
37. This Court held that there was no justification to hold that the integrity
of the notified scheme would not be affected if the overlapping
portion of permit is under five miles or by stipulating a condition.
No permit or renewal of permit could have been granted—however
short the distance of the route might be—if the scheme totally or
partially prohibits other operators from operating on the route or a
part thereof. Thus, setting aside the order of the Mysore High Court
which upheld the grant of permit, this Court directed the Regional
Transport Authority to comply with the requirements of the scheme.
38. Incidentally, Hon’ble M.H. Beg, J. (as the Chief Justice then was) was
a member of both the Benches. His Lordship wrote a dissenting view
in Mysore SRTC (II) (supra) while reiterating the views expressed
in Mysore SRTC (I) (supra).
39. The reason for the conclusion drawn by His Lordship in Mysore
SRTC (I) (supra) is found in paragraph 3. The same reads:
“3. Section 68-C requires, as a condition precedent
to any exclusion of private operators under a scheme
of nationalisation from ‘any area or route or portion
thereof’, that the scheme should give ‘particulars of the
nature of services proposed to be rendered, the area or
route proposed to be covered and such other particulars
respecting thereto as may be prescribed’. Each scheme
has to be published in the Official Gazette and also ‘in such
manner as the State Government may direct’. A scheme
finally emerges, after opportunities given under Section
68-D of the Act for objections by persons interested in
providing transport facilities as well as by local and police
authorities within the area or upon the routes proposed to
be covered by a scheme, as an approved scheme in which
the original proposals may or may not have been modified.
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 397

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through
Its Chief General Manager v. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors.

Each scheme so approved can be either cancelled or
modified by the State Transport Undertaking under Section
68-E of the Act in accordance with the procedure laid down
by Sections 68-C and 68-D of the Act.”
40. Though sounding logical having regard to the enormity of the process
that is involved in reaching an IS-RT Agreement by and between
two States, the said ruling ceases to have any effect in view of the
precedents that it did not follow and which has since been expressly
overruled by the Constitution Bench in Adarsh Travels Bus Services
v. State of Uttar Pradesh24.
41. In Adarsh Travels Bus Services (supra), the Constitution Bench
had the occasion to consider both the aforementioned decisions
and settled the law. While specifically dissenting from the view
taken in Mysore SRTC (I) (supra) and agreeing with the view in
Mysore SRTC (II) (supra), this Court affirmed earlier decisions of
this Court which interpreted the law in Chapter IV-A of the 1939 MV
Act excluding private operators from plying on a common stretch of
a notified route as perfectly in order. The relevant paragraphs from
such decision read as follows:
“13. In Mysore State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mysore
Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Beg and Chandrachud, JJ.,
departing from the views generally taken till then, took
the view that a scheme which totally excluded inter-State
private operators from using any part of a notified route
must make the intention clear. There was a difference
between area and route. Route denoted the abstract
conception of line of travel. A difference in the two termini
of two routes would make the two routes different, even if
there was overlapping. Unless the scheme clearly indicated
that the user of any portion of the highway covered by
the notified route was prohibited, inter-State operators
could not be debarred from plying their vehicles over the
overlapping part of the inter-State route merely because
of the physical fact of the overlapping of the two routes.
The learned Judges did not notice the earlier decisions of
the Court in C.P.C. Motor Service v. State of Mysore (AIR

24 (1985) 4 SCC 557
398 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

1966 SC 1661) and Abdul Khader v. Mysore Revenue
Appellate Tribunal [(1973) 1 SCC 357]. Nilkanth Prasad
case (AIR 1962 SC 1135) was noticed but bypassed
with the observation ‘whatever may be said about the
correctness of the decision’ etc.
14. In Mysore State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mysore State
Transport Appellate Tribunal [(1974) 2 SCC 750], all the
earlier cases were noticed and it was held:
‘It is, therefore, apparent that where a private transport
owner makes an application to operate on a route
which overlaps even a portion of the notified route
i.e. where the part of the highway to be used by
the private transport owner traverses on a line on
the same highway on the notified route, then that
application has to be considered only in the light of
the scheme as notified. If any conditions are placed
then those conditions have to be fulfilled and if there
is a total prohibition then the application must be
rejected.
* * *
This Court has, consistently taken the view that if
there is a prohibition to operate on a notified route
or routes no licences can be granted to any private
operator whose route traversed or overlapped any
part or whole of that notified route. The intersection
of the notified route may not, in our view, amount
to traversing or overlapping the route because the
prohibition imposed applied to a whole or part of the
route on the highway on the same line of the route.
An intersection cannot be said to be traversing the
same line, as it cuts across it.’
The learned Judges expressly dissented from the decision
of Beg and Chandrachud, JJ. in Mysore State Transport
Corpn. v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal [(1975)
4 SCC 192] and approved the decisions of the court in
Nilkanth Prasad case and Abdul Khader case. We agree
with the view taken by this Court in Mysore State Road
Transport Corpn. v. Mysore State Transport Appellate
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 399

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through
Its Chief General Manager v. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors.

Tribunal and dissent from the view taken in Mysore State
Road Transport Corpn. v. Mysore Revenue Appellate
Tribunal. We however wish to introduce a note of caution.
When preparing and publishing the scheme under Section
68-C and approving or modifying the scheme under Section
68-D care must be taken to protect, as far as possible,
the interest of the travelling public who could in the past
travel from one point to another without having to change
from one service to another en route. This can always be
done by appropriate clauses exempting operators already
having permits over common sector from the scheme and
by incorporating appropriate conditional clauses in the
scheme to enable them to ply their vehicles over common
sectors without picking up or setting down passengers on
the common sectors. If such a course is not feasible the
State Legislature may intervene and provide some other
alternative as was done by the Uttar Pradesh Legislature
by the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Act 27 of 1976 by
Section 5 of which the competent authority could authorise
the holder of a permit of a stage carriage to ply his stage
carriage on a portion of a notified route subject to terms and
conditions including payment of licence fee. There may be
other methods of not inconveniencing through passengers
but that is entirely a matter for the State Legislature, the
State Government and the State Transport Undertaking.
But we do wish to emphasise that good and sufficient care
must be taken to see that the travelling public is not to be
needlessly inconvenienced.
***
16. In one of the cases it was argued before us that
though the scheme framed by the Uttar Pradesh
Transport Undertaking prohibited the plying of private
stage carriages on the notified part of an inter-state
route within the State of Uttar Pradesh, a later Madhya
Pradesh scheme published by the Madhya Pradesh
State Transport Undertaking pursuant to an inter-State
agreement allowed the plying of stage carriages by
private operators on that part of the route which was
in Uttar Pradesh also. The argument was that the later
400 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

scheme superseded the earlier scheme and therefore the
operators could ply their vehicles on the Uttar Pradesh
part of the route also. We are unable to see how the
scheme framed by the Uttar Pradesh State Transport
Undertaking can be superseded by the scheme framed
by the Madhya Pradesh State Transport Undertaking.”
42. In T.V. Nataraj v. State of Karnataka25, a coordinate Bench was
tasked to decide the following question:
“1. Whether notification of a route under Section 68-C of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short ‘the Act’) excluding
completely or partially private operators from plying on the
notified route results in excluding the operators of inter-
State route as well is the question of law that arises for
consideration in these appeals.”
Answering the question in the affirmative, it was specifically held
as follows:
“5. Mr Ashoke Sen, the learned senior counsel for the
appellant, relied on observations in Adarsh Travels case
[(1985) 4 SCC 557] and urged that whether a scheme was
for total or partial exclusion depended on interpretation
of the scheme itself. According to him, a reading of the
scheme indicated that since operators of inter-State
route are not excluded from the scheme, the view taken
by the High Court or the Transport Authority cannot be
upheld. The submission cannot be accepted in view of
overruling of the earlier decision of this Court in Mysore
State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mysore Revenue Appellate
Tribunal [(1975) 4 SCC 192] by the Constitution Bench.
Even though the Bench in Mysore State Road Transport
Corpn. v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal did not
consider it necessary to decide if publication of scheme
precludes an inter-State operator from plying on notified
portion of intra-State route as the Bench was satisfied that
the scheme did not exclude an inter-State operator from
plying but in view of the decision in Adarsh Travels case

25 (1994) 2 SCC 32
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 401

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through
Its Chief General Manager v. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors.

and in absence of express authorisation in the scheme,
the controversy is no more res integra.
6. In the result, these appeals fail and are dismissed. We
may, however, while dismissing these appeals, reiterate
what was said in Adarsh Travels case that it is for the
State to take steps so as to avoid any inconvenience to
the public either by framing a proper legislation or by taking
steps, as were pointed out in that decision.”
43. We have extensively quoted the statutory provisions, more
particularly, Section 88 of the 1988 MV Act to highlight how a draft
IS-RT Agreement is to be published in the Official Gazette inviting
objections and also that only upon consideration of the same is the
final IS-RT Agreement published for information of all concerned.
Since the IS-RT Agreement was given effect upon concurrence of
both the States - State of MP and State of UP - it is presumed that
objections lodged, if any, were duly considered. There was a provision
in the IS-RT Agreement that should the MPSRTC be wound up, the
routes earmarked for it in Annexure B would be included in Annexure
A and private operators permitted to apply for and obtain permits on
such routes. Whether or not the UPSRTC lodged any objection or the
same, though lodged, was not considered, is of little consequence.
UPSRTC can be said to have accepted the position that in the event
of the MPSRTC not being in a position to ply its stage carriages
on the routes included in Annexure B, the said routes would stand
included in Annexure A and the private permit holders entitled in law
to obtain permits to ply stage carriages on such routes. Based on the
materials placed on record, the private operators urge us to accept
that MPSRTC has been wound up. However, there is no clinching
evidence to that effect. At best, the materials on record hint at the
process of winding up of MPSRTC being underway.
44. Now, in view of the precedents governing the field which answer
the substantial question of law formulated by us fairly and squarely,
grant of relief to the private operators seems well-nigh impossible
unless of course MPSRTC is clearly shown to have been wound up.
45. In addition, what also stands in the way of grant of relief in favour
of the private operators is the statutory ordainment of Chapter VI
overriding Chapter V. An IS-RT Agreement can be executed by two
States drawing power from Section 88 of the 1988 MV Act, which is
402 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

part of Chapter V thereof. As has been noted, the consistent view of
this Court has been that an IS-RT Agreement by its very nature is an
agreement between two States but not a law under the relevant MV
Act. Approved schemes and notified routes, which are envisaged in
Chapter VI, would obviously override Section 88, in view of Section
98 of the 1988 MV Act. MSRTC – I (supra) being no longer good law,
such decision cannot aid the private operators though it seems logical
that plying of a stage carriage by a private operator on an inter-State
route, which happens to overlap a part of a notified intra-State route,
should be expressly excluded by incorporating requisite recitals in the
IS-RT Agreement, which is subsequent in point of time, because no
such agreement can surface in the absence of consensus between
two neighbouring States. Once two States hold talks for formulating
and opening up routes for plying of stage carriages connecting cities/
towns in such States on reciprocal basis and reduce the agreed terms
to a written agreement, which is also given wide publicity to remove
any possible hurdles, there is a presupposition of various objects
and purposes having been factored therein, which undoubtedly have
serving public interest at the forefront. If the two reciprocating States
fail to notice that the services to be introduced would face road-blocks
because certain inter-State routes overlap a few intra-State routes,
public interest is rendered a casualty and thereby, the whole object
and purpose of the IS-RT Agreement would be frustrated and lost in
the process. Before closing the discussion on this topic, we are left
with no option but to lament noticing the apparent lack of application
of mind and of purpose by the States of UP and MP which have
dented the prospect of maximisation of public interest consequent
upon introduction of a few of the inter-State routes overlapping part
of routes notified in favour of the UPSRTC. Much was expected
of the States of UP and MP as well as the UPRSTC to protect the
interest of the passengers and commuters, which unfortunately has
not fructified. While we propose to allow the civil appeals and dismiss
the writ petition, it would not be in the best interest of the people of
the States of UP and MP for us to remain as mute spectators. We
wish to make a few parting observations and directions.
46. While considering evolution of road transport in India, one cannot
miss the significant transformation that it has undergone over the
years. Sincere and serious attempts to revolutionise travel on road
by passengers and commuters are discernible. Leaving behind the
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 403

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through
Its Chief General Manager v. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors.

humble beginnings, focus on infrastructure development has seen
a quantum leap. India has developed, in this century, an intricate
network of highways providing accessibility to nearby cities and
towns from the remotest of villages, thereby establishing ‘last-mile
connectivity’. Expressways have been constructed to facilitate faster
movement of people and goods between distant locations and
thereby reduce travel time. These highways and expressways are
transforming India’s transportation landscape and driving economic
growth, among others. What deserves special note is that the surface
of these highways/expressways is smoother than ever before. With the
introduction of modern vehicles, operators of stage carriage services
have been providing comfort and convenience which are comparable
with services available abroad. Switch to electric vehicles for both
public and private use has facilitated sustainable transportation. A
feature of smart transportation has been integration of technology to
enhance efficiency and safety. In fine, with continued innovation and
investment, the road transport sector seems to have progressed to
attain more efficiency, sustainability and accessibility.
47. Data that is presently available on the websites of a number of State
Road Transport Corporations do suggest that a couple of these
corporations are thriving, with impressive growth and adoption of
technology. Digitalisation has been a game changer. To adapt to
the changing transportation landscape, leveraging technology to
improve services and customer experience is the priority for these
corporations. Bookings are now made on online platforms and live
tracking is available on mobile apps. Measures have been taken to
expand services and to streamline operations. Notwithstanding that
in certain areas/routes old buses which are on the verge of being
phased out are being plied, modern-era vehicles such as e-buses
have been introduced in some sectors by the SRTCs.
48. None can possibly dispute that the nation having made substantial
progress in the road transport sector, interests of passengers and
commuters ought to be of prime concern for the transport authorities;
in this case, of both the States, i.e., UP and MP. While no permission
can be granted at this stage to any private operator having a permit
issued by the STA, MP to ply his vehicle on an inter-State route
connecting two cities in the neighbouring States, which overlaps
any notified intra-State route in the State of UP, we are inclined
to the view that much can be achieved through dialogue between
404 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the two States. The parting observations in Adarsh Travels Bus
Services (supra), as reiterated in T.V. Nataraj (supra) cannot be
lost sight of. Stage carriage services are provided for the benefit
of a vast cross-section of the population and subjecting them to
inconvenience would amount to disservice by the States of MP and
UP. After all, an inference can legitimately be drawn that the STA,
MP having issued permits to private operators on routes hitherto
before reserved for the MPSRTC, the same might not have been
possible if the MPSRTC had been plying its vehicles on such routes.
However, the terms of the IS-RT Agreement specifically required the
MPSRTC to be wound up for the private operators to stake claims
for obtaining permits on routes earmarked for it. Though it has not
been conclusively established before us that the MPSRTC has been
wound up, an opportunity ought to be extended to establish it and
if proved, at least an attempt ought to be made to fully work out the
IS-RT Agreement with modifications which itself contemplates that
such a modification could be made.
49. To facilitate such an exercise, it would be desirable if the Principal
Secretaries of the Transport Departments of the States of MP and
UP, together with other responsible officers of the said departments,
meet at a mutually convenient venue within 3 months from date to
discuss the modalities for fully working out the IS-RT Agreement.
If indeed, the transport authorities of the State of MP satisfy the
transport authorities of the State of UP that the MPSRTC has been
wound up or is on the verge of being wound up and, therefore, not
in a position to ply stage carriages on the routes earmarked for it
(Annexure B), appropriate decision may be taken to include the
routes in Annexure B of the IS-RT Agreement in Annexure A thereof
and measures taken to give effect to such inclusion. Needless to
observe, such measures ought to be affected upon a consensus
being reached for permitting private operators to ply on the inter-
State routes originating from the State of MP and terminating in the
State of UP and back. To what extent and, if at all, the interest of
the UPSRTC needs to be protected and can be achieved is left to
the discretion of the transport authorities of the States of UP and
MP. In addition, so long few intra-State routes in the State of UP
are notified in favour of the UPSRTC and portions thereof fall in the
line of travel of stage carriages of certain inter-State routes, both
the States may also consider the desirability of exploring whether
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 405

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through
Its Chief General Manager v. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors.

partial exclusion of inter-State routes from the approved scheme [as
referred to in Section 99 of the 1988 MV Act] can be permitted so
as to further the interests of the passengers and the commuters.
Should there be consensus, no time ought to be wasted for grant/
issue of permits and countersignature thereof by the reciprocating
State. In the unlikely event of absence of consensus between the
two States to permit private operators to ply their vehicles as stage
carriages from routes originating in the State of MP and terminating
in the State of UP as well as the return trip from the State of UP to
the State of MP, the State of MP shall also be at liberty to decide
its future course of action keeping in mind that an IS-RT Agreement
cannot be revoked without the consent of both the States. We
reiterate, these being matters of policy, should be left to both the
States to decide and we do hereby reserve it for their consideration.

Conclusions
50. Based on what is discussed above and considering the circumstances
that have since unfolded, we proceed to order as under:
i. The judgment and order of the High Court under challenge in
the lead appeal being Civil Appeal No. 10522 of 2025 [U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation through its Chief General
Manager v. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors.] stands set aside.
ii. The other judgment(s) and order(s) under challenge in the
connected civil appeals also stand set aside.
iii. Writ Petition No. 748 of 2024 stands dismissed.
iv. The States of MP and UP may proceed in the manner we have
observed in paragraph 49 supra.
51. On the aforesaid terms, the proceedings stand closed without any
order as to costs.

Result of the case: Matters disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain