Holding

A scheme once approved and notified freezes the notified area, and private operators cannot obtain temporary permits for a carved‑out route; the High Court’s order was illegal.

Summary

The Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport Corporation (appellant) challenged the Allahabad High Court’s order directing the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permits to private operators for a new route carved out by merging two notified routes (Bulandshahr‑Delhi and Shahdara‑Saharanpur) and to lift the corporation’s permit on the existing route. The scheme for these routes had been approved and notified under Sections 100 and 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, giving the corporation exclusive monopoly to ply stage carriages. The respondents sought temporary permits on the carved‑out Ghaziabad‑Saharanpur route, arguing the proviso in Section 104 allowed such permits until the corporation commenced service. The Supreme Court held that once a scheme is published, the notified area is frozen; the proviso only permits temporary permits until the corporation starts service, not to enable a new fused route. Consequently, the High Court’s direction was ultra vires, and the appeals were allowed, setting aside the order without costs.

Issues considered

Whether a new route created by fusing two notified routes can be granted temporary permits under the proviso of Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Whether the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority has jurisdiction to grant such temporary permits after a scheme has been approved and notified.
Whether the High Court’s order directing the grant of temporary permits and the lifting of the corporation’s permit is ultra vires.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 100, s. 104

Subjects

Motor Vehicles Acttemporary permitsnotified routeschemeexclusive rightpublic transportultra viresState Transport AuthorityRegional Transport Authorityroute carvingmonopoly

Judgment

A U.P. STATE ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPN., LUCKNOW
THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER
v.
ANWAR AHMED AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

C Ss. 100 and 104-Grant of pennit in respect of notified area/route--
Scheme in respect of two nationalised routes notified-Private operators
seeki11g temporwy pennits for a 11ew route carved out by fusi11g two notified
routes--Held, 110 11ew route can be introduced by fusi11g two 11otified routes
and temporary pennits can11ot be obtailled 011 the carved out route-This
D device is impennissible to ellter i11to froze11 area or route or portion thereof
through back door-The scheme is law by itself a11d u11til it is varied according
to law no private operator has any right to camouflage a11y device to obtai11
temporary pemiit!r'-Actio11 taken by the respo11dents to obtai11 temporary
pennits is ultra vires and authorities have 110 jurisdiction to grant such
pe1mit!r'-Altered or modified routes are contrary to the approved scheme since
E they have been occupied by two notified routes-011ce the scheme has been
approved and 11otified, the appellant-Corporation has the exclusive right or
monopoly to ply its stage carriages and obtain required pennits as per the
scheme-And right to ply stage carriages by private operators in notified area,
route or portio11 thereof is totally frozen-They have no right to claim any
F grant of stage carriage, temporary or colltract carriage pennits thereunder on
the notified area, routes or portio11s thereof except to the exte11t saved by the
scheme with restrictiollS imposed thereunder-The proviso to s.104 is limited
only to the exte11t that until the Corporation plies its vehicles on the notified
routes as per the scheme, temporary pennits may be granted to private
G operators i11 order to avert inconvenience to travelling public----Pennits were
obtained by appellant-Corporation and vehicles were plied on the routes in
tenns of the scheme-Directions given by the High Court in favour of the
private operators is illegal. -~

Ram Krishna Vernia & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1992] 2 SCC 620,
H referred to.
98
U.P.STATEROADWAYSTPT.CORPN.1'. ANWAR AHMAD 99

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 13119-28 A
of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 2.6.96 of the Allahabad High
Court in W.P. No. 1538 of 1995.

V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, Raju Ramachandran, B
Pradip Misra and T. Mahipal for the Appellants.

H.N. Salve, Ms. Rani Chabra and Ms. Rachna Srivastva for the
Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : c
Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. D

This case has a chequered history of its own. For over three decades,
the scheme was not allowed to be finalised, but ultimately by the judgment
of this Court in Ram Krishna Vernia & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1992]
2 SCC 620, the scheme was finalised and published in the Gazette. Two
E
unsuccessful attempts were made subsequently to reopen the issue and
thwart the scheme but remained unsuccessful. This is a third occasion. This
time a device was employed to carve out a route from two nationalised
routes, viz., Bulandshaher to Delhi and Shahdara to Saharanpur. They are
now sought to be interjected with temporary permits to be obtained on the
carved out route Ghaziabad to Saharanpur. Thereby, they sought to F
entrench upon frozen field through back-door process of forcing the
appeJlant to obtain aJI permits as per the scheme, lest the temporary
permits should be given to them by the. State Transport Authority or
Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be.

The High Court of Allahabad by order dated June 2, 1995 directed
G
the Regional Transport Authority to consider the grant of temporary
»'-;JD>· permits for the Ghaziabad to Saharanpur route and, in the meanwhile,
liberty was given to the appeJlant-Corporation to lift the permit granted for
the route. Proceedings were taken out by the Corporation before the State
Transport Authority to grant permit which necessitated filing of the writ H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A petition. By the impugned order dated November 17, 1995 of the High
Cour.t in the contempt proceedings and also orders dated January 10, 1996
and January 16, 1996, temporary permits were directed to be taken by the
respondents. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

In view of the settled legal position that once the scheme has been
B approved and notified, right to ply stage carriages by private operators on
the notified area, routes or portions thereof is totally frozen. Therefore,
they have no right to claim any grant of stage carriage, temporary or
contact carriage permits thereunder on the said notified area, routes or
portions thereof except to the extent saved by the scheme with restrictions
C imposed thereunder. Shri Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel, sought
to rely upon provision to Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short, the 'Act') to justify the orders which provides as under:

"104. Restriction on grant of permits in respect of a notified area
or notified route. Where a scheme has been published under
D sub-section (3) of the Section 100 in respect of any notified area
or notified route, the State Transport Authority or the Regional
Transport AQthority, as the case may be, shall not grant any permit
except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme:

Provided that where no application for a permit has been made
E by the State transport undertaking in respect of any notified area
or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme, the State
Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the
case may be, may grant temporary permits to any person in respect
..
of such notified area or notified route subject to the condition that
F such permits shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to
the State transport undertaking in respect of that area or route."

It would, therefore, be seen that where the scheme has been publish-
ed under sub-section (3) of Section 100 in respect of any notified area or
G notified route, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport
Authority, as the case may be, shall not grant any permit except in accord-
ance with the provisions of the scheme. Thus, the appellant-Corporation
has the exclusive right or monopoly to ply their stage carriages and obtain
the required permit as per the scheme. The proviso gives only a limited
breath of life, namely, until the Corporation puts the vehicles on the
H notified routes as per the scheme, temporary permits may be granted to
U.P.STATEROADWAYSTPT.CORPN.v.ANWARAHMAD 101

private operators. Thereby, it would be clear that temporary inconvenience A
to travelling public is sought to be averted till the permits are taken and
vehicles are put on the route by the appellant. Therefore, the temporary
permits will have only limited breath of life. Private operators are attempt-
ing to wear the mask of inconvenience to travelling public to infiltrate into
forbidden notified area, route or portion thereof to sabotage the scheme.
The permits were taken by the appellant and the vehicles are put on the
B
route in terms of the scheme. Therefore, the direction given by the High
Court at the pain of contempt is obviously illegal. It is stated by Shri V.R.
Reddy. Additional Solicitor General, on instruction that the appellant is
prepared to take all the permits required on the routes.
c
But the crucial question is: whether a new route can be introduced
by fusing two notified routes and temporary permits sought to be obtained
on carved out route? This device is obviously impermissible to enter into
frozen area or route or portion thereof through back-door. The scheme is
law by itself and until it is varied according to law, no private bperator has
any right to camouflage any devise to obtain temporary permits. Under D
these circumstances, action taken by the respondents to obtain temporary
permits is obviously ultra vires and authorities have no jurisdiction to grant
such permits. The altered or modified routes are contrary to the approved
scheme, since they have been occupied by two notified routes and to be
operated as per the scheme. E
Under these circumstances, the appeals are accordingly allowed but,
in the circumstances, without costs.

R.P. Appeals allowed.