http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MOHD. SHAFIQ KHAN & ORS. ETC.,

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: COMPETENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/11/1987

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) SINGH, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR  303            1988 SCR  (2)  95  1988 SCC  (1) 267        JT 1987 (4)   489  1987 SCALE  (2)1224

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

HEADNOTE: %      The petitioners,  holders of  permanent stage  carriage permits for  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/Barabanki notified  routes.  The  applications  were rejected. The petitioners moved the High Court for relief by Writ Petitions. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved, the petitioners 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 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  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 stood discharged  on the  dismissal of  the writ  petitions. [97A;; C; G]      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] Supp. SCC 22; and Sumer Chand

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Sharma and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr., [1985] 3 SCC 263, referred to. 96

JUDGMENT:      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.      V.J. Francis for the Petitioners.      The following order of the Court was delivered:                             O R D E R      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-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 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  petitioners we are of  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 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 scheme 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 pick up  and set  down any  passengers  on  the  overlapping portions of a 97 notified  route.   The  schemes  notifing  Unnao-Kanpur  and Lucknow-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 Provision)  Act   1976  has  power  to  grant  authorisation certificate to a private operator under Section S 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., 119841 (Supp.) SCC 22 that the competent authority  has jurisdiction to grant authorisation certificate only  to those operators who held permit for the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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 notified 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 routes were nationalised they are not entitled to grant of authorisation 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  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 S of  the   U.P.  Act   27  of   1976  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  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 98 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).      The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed. S.L.                                    Petitions dismissed. 99