Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3879 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14318 of 2007)

Punjab Roadways Moga through its  General Manager … Appellant (s)

Versus

Punja Sahib Bus and Transport Co. & Ors. …Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3880 OF  2010 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.14319 Of 2007)

State of Punjab …Appellant(s)

Versus

Majhi Express Transport Service Regd. & Ors. …Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3881 OF 2010       [Arising out of SLP(C) No.20753 of 2007]

Punjab Roadways Hoshiarpur … Appellant (s)

Versus

Joginder Singh …Respondent(s)

....2/-

- 2 -

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3882 OF 2010      [Arising out of SLP(C) No.21409 of 2007]

The General Manager,  Punjab Roadways Pathankot …Appellant(s)

Versus

Bajwa Coop. Bus Service Batala & Ors. …Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3883 OF 2010       [Arising out of SLP(C) No.2407 of 2008]

Punjab Roadways Nawanshahar …Appellant(s)

Versus

Patiala Bus Highways Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. …Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3884 OF 2010      [Arising out of SLP(C) No.2408 of 2008]

The General Manager,  Punjab Roadways Amritsar II …Appellant(s)

Versus

Bajwa Coop. Bus Service Batala & Ors. …Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.3885-86 OF 2010   [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.2409-2410 of 2008]

Punjab Roadways Batala Etc. …Appellant(s)

Versus

Amandeep Travels (Regd.) Patiala & Anr. …Respondent(s)

....3/-

- 3 -

J U D G M E N T

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Leave granted in all these special leave  petitions. Facts of the first two appeals.   

2. We will first deal with the first two appeals  

which arise out of a common order dated 21.8.2000 passed by the  

State  Transport  Commissioner  (in  short  “the  Commissioner”)  

exercising  the  powers  conferred  on  the  Regional  Transport  

Authorities of Jalandhar, Patiala and Ferozpur. The order of  

the Commissioner   was    confirmed   by   the   State  

Transport Appellate Tribunal (in short “the Tribunal”) vide its  

order dated 27.4.2005, but interfered with by the High Court in  

C.W.P  No.8483/2005  and  C.W.P.  No.11768  of  2005  respectively  

with a positive direction to the Commissioner to grant Stage  

Carriage Permits to the private operators rejecting the claims  

of the State Transport Undertakings (STUs). The legality of the  

order of the High Court is under challenge in these two cases  

filed by the State of Punjab through the Commissioner and the  

Punjab Roadways, Moga, represented by its General Manager.

3. The  Secretary,  Regional  Transport  Authority,  

Jalandhar, published  a notice in the Motor  Transport Gazette,  

Weekly,  Chandigarh  in  its  issue  dated  22.2.1999  inviting  

applications for the grant of four Stage Carriage Permits for

....4/-

- 4 -

plying two return trips daily in the Pathankot – Faridkot via  

Mukkerian,  Dasuya,  Jalandhar  Nakodar,  Moga,  Talwandi  Bhai,  

Mudki route a substantial portion of which falls within the  

National and State Highways.  As per the scheme published on 9th  

August,  1990  (in  short  the  ‘1990  Scheme’)  modified  by  the  

Punjab Government on 21.10.1997 (in short the ‘1997 modified  

scheme’), the routes on the National as well as State Highways  

have  to  be  shared  by  the  STUs  and  private  operators  in  a  

specified ratio.  

4. In response to the notice, 112 applications were  

received  which  included  the  applications  from  the  General  

Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga as well as from the Pepsu Road  

Transport Corporation, Faridkot, (STUs).

5. The contents of the applications were published  

in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh in its issue  

dated 22.4.1999 inviting representations/suggestions from the  

general public, but there was no response.

6. Out of the 112 applicants, 31 applicants failed  

to  respond.   Out  of  four  permits,  it  was  decided  by  the  

Commissioner that two permits with one return trip daily be  

allotted to STUs and other two trips to the private operators.  

The  General  Manager, Punjab  Roadways, Moga  applied for the

....5/-

- 5 -

grant of two stage carriage permits with one return trip daily  

in  the  notified  route  and  the  General  Manager,  Pepsu  Road  

Transport Corporation, Faridkot applied for the grant  of four  

stage carriage permits for plying two return trips daily on  

that route.  

7. The representatives of the STUs submitted that  

due share of   mileage be allotted to them. The Commissioner  

heard the rest of the applicants who had applied for  permits  

in the private sector. It was decided that the applications of  

existing operators be not considered in the interest of healthy  

competition and for maintaining balanced transport service and  

also to ensure that monopoly of individuals or a group be not  

allowed to develop in the particular route/ area.   

8. Applications  from  the  new  entrants  were  

considered by the Commissioner and it was resolved vide order  

dated 21.8.2000 to grant one stage carriage permit for plying  

one return daily trip each on the notified route to the Punjab  

Roadways, Moga and to Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, and one  

permit  to  Gurbhajan  Singh  and  Jagdev  Singh  jointly  and  the  

other to Metro Transport Registered Sangrur for a period of  

five years.  The grantees were allowed three months’ time to  

obtain the permits.  

....6/-

- 6 -

9. Aggrieved  by  the  order  of  the  Commissioner,  

three appeals --  Appeal Nos.391/2000, 233/2001 and 147/2004  

were preferred by the private applicants before the Tribunal  

under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the  

‘Act’)  challenging  the  grant  of  permits  to  the  private  

operators  and  the  STUs.   Before  the  Tribunal,  it  was  

represented  that  STUs  though  granted  the  permits,  were  not  

operating the services and, therefore, those permits be granted  

to  the  appellants  so  that  public  would  not  be  put  to  

inconvenience.  On their request, reports were called for from  

the  Regional  Transport  Authority  (in  short  the  ‘RTA’)  to  

ascertain  as  to  whether  the  STUs  were  in  fact  operating  

services. The Secretary, RTA, Jalandhar vide his reports dated  

5.4.2005  and  20.4.2005  reported  that  the  permit  granted  to  

Pepsu Transport Corporation was surrendered by it on 1.6.2002  

and  that  the  Punjab  Roadways  had  so  far  not  utilized  the  

permit.    The Tribunal  considered the comparative merits of  

the applicants and found no illegality in the order granting  

the permits to the private operators and found no reason to  

disturb the grant of permits to STUs.  Appeal No.223/2007 was  

also rejected on the ground of delay so also on the ground that  

applicant cannot be treated as a new entrant since its sister  

concern was already granted permit.  All the three appeals were  

therefore  rejected  by  the  Tribunal  vide    its  order  dated  

27.4.2005.

....7/-

- 7 -

10. Aggrieved  by  the  said  order,  Majhi  Express  

Transport Service Corporation, preferred Writ Petition C.W.P.  

No.8483/2005  and  Punja  Sahib  Bus  Transport  Corporation  

preferred  Writ  Petition  C.W.P.  No.11768  of  2005  before  the  

Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court.   The  Writ  Petition  C.W.P.  

No.8483/2005 came up before a Division Bench of the Punjab and  

Haryana High Court on 24.10.2005.  It was represented before  

the Court that since STUs had failed to operate the two permits  

granted  to  them,  those  permits  be  granted  to  the  Writ  

Petitioner.  The High Court took the view that the Tribunal was  

not  justified  in  declining  grant  of  permit  to  the  Writ  

Petitioner on the ground  of delay and on the ground that its  

sister concern had already been granted a permit  on 9.11.2004.  

Further, the High Court also took the view that due to  

non  user  of  the  permit  by  the  STUs,  public  will  be  the  

sufferer. The Court noticed that the permit granted to STUs was  

neither utilized nor operated and, hence, it was not open to  

the STUs to raise any objection regarding the grant of permit  

to the writ petitioner.  The High Court, therefore, gave a  

positive  direction  to  the  Commissioner  to  grant  one  stage  

carriage permit with half return trip daily to the said writ  

petitioner.  The permits granted to the other private operators  

were not interfered with.  

....8/-

- 8 -

11. C.W.P. No.11768/2005 later came up for hearing  

before  the  Division  Bench  on  1.12.2006  and  following  the  

judgment in Writ Petition no. 8483/2005, the Court ordered that  

one stage carriage permit be granted to the writ petitioner  

therein also with half return trip daily in the notified route  

since the STUs were not operating the permits granted. Permits  

granted to the private operators were not interfered with.

12. Aggrieved  by  the  judgments  in  C.W.P.  

No.8483/2005 and 11768/2005, the State of Punjab and the Punjab  

Roadways Moga respectively have filed the first two appeals.

Facts in the other appeals.   

13. We shall now refer to the facts of the other  

connected  appeals  since  some  of  the  issues  which  arise  for  

consideration  in  all  those  appeals  are  common.   The  Punjab  

Roadways has preferred all these appeals challenging the common  

judgment dated 1.5.2007 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in  

C.W.P. No.11916/2006, CWP No.123/2006, 11332/2006, 12982/2006,  

9085/2005 and 5824/2006. The Punjab Roadways was the petitioner  

in all those writ petitions challenging the orders passed by  

the  Tribunal  on  28.10.2005,  17.12.2004,  25.8.2005,  3.10.2005  

and 1.8.2005 directing grant of permits to private operators in  

various notified routes on the ground that Punjab Roadways was  

not operating services inspite of grant of permits.  In these  

appeals, the Punjab Roadways has contended that the Tribunal as  

well as the High Court has erred in granting regular permits to

....9/-

- 9 -

the private sector over-looking the claims of STUs in gross  

violation of 1990 scheme as modified in the year 1997 and the  

provisions of Chapter VI of the  Act.

14.  The learned counsel for the appellants submitted  

that  the  High  Court  was  not  justified  in  directing  the  

Commissioner to grant permits to the private operators on the  

ground  that  the  STUs  had  either  not  utilized  the  permits,  

surrendered  the  permits  or  not  applied  for  the  permits.  

Learned  counsel  submitted  that  substantial  portions  of  the  

notified route fall under the National/State Highways and as  

per the provisions of the 1990 scheme as amended in the year  

1997 the mileage of different types of routes in the State of  

Punjab  has  to  be  shared  by  the  STUs  along  with  private  

operators  in  the  prescribed  ratio  mentioned  in  the  scheme.  

Learned  counsel  submitted  that  the  STUs  could  not  operate  

services due to insufficiency of fleets and dearth of staff and  

now STUs are in possession of sufficient number of buses and  

are in a position to operate services on the notified routes.  

Learned counsel submitted that granting permits falling in the  

share of STUs to the private operators would be against the  

provisions  of  the  Act  and  the  Rules  and  the  provisions  of  

notified scheme.  Learned counsel submitted that even if STUs  

had failed to utilize  the permits or surrendered the permits,  

or had failed to apply for permits on the notified routes those  

vacancies  could  be  filled  up  only  by  inviting  fresh  

applications and only temporary permits could be granted in

- 10 -

case if  there is a public need.  Learned counsel submitted  

that the Tribunal and the High Court have committed a grave  

error in directing the RTA to grant regular permits to the  

private operators on the notified routes upsetting the ratio  

fixed  by  the  scheme  in  gross  violation  of  the  proviso  to  

Section 104 of the   Act.   

15. Mr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, learned senior counsel  

appearing for the contesting respondents submitted that there  

is  no  illegality  in  the  order  passed  by  the  High  Court  in  

directing the grant of stage carriage permits to the private  

operators  since  there  was  failure  on  the  part  of  STUs  in  

operating the services in spite of grant of permits.  Learned  

senior  counsel  referred  to  Rule  128(5)  of  the  Punjab  Motor  

Vehicles Rules, 1989  and submitted that if the grantees fail  

to utilise the permit for a period of more than six months, the  

permit would lapse and the grantee is debarred from raising  

further claims on the grant of permit to the other operators.  

Learned senior counsel also submitted that the High Court was  

justified  in  directing  the  grant  of  permits  to  the  private  

operators under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in  

public interest.  Learned senior counsel also referred to the  

1990 scheme and submitted the route i.e. Pathankot – Faridkot  

does not find a place in the annexures to scheme and is not a  

notified  route.  Further,  it  was  also  pointed  out  that  the  

Pathankot – Faridkot is not a monopoly route of the STUs and no  

portion  of  the  route  partly  overlaps  any  of the monopoly

- 11 -

routes.  It was also pointed out that with reference to the  

appeal  by  Punjab  Roadways,  Nawanshahar,  that  the  route  in  

dispute that is Ludhiana to Mahilpur is also not a monopoly  

route and is not a part of the list annexed with the 1990  

scheme.  Various other infirmities have also been pointed out.  

16. The first question for our consideration is whether the  

Tribunal  and  the  High  Court  are  justified  in  directing  the  

Commissioner  exercising  the  powers  of  RTAs  to  grant  regular  

permits to the private operators on the ground that the STUs  

had  either  failed  to  utilize   the  permits  granted  or  

surrendered the permits or had not applied for the permits in  

the notified routes.  In order to examine that question it is  

necessary to refer to the 1990 Scheme as amended in the year  

1997.   

17. The  Government  of  Punjab,  in  exercise  of  the  

powers conferred under Section 100 of the Act, formulated a  

scheme so as to provide an efficient, adequate, economical and  

properly co-coordinated road transport service in the State of  

Punjab.  Notification to that effect was published in Punjab  

Government  Gazette  (Extra  Ordinary  )  dated  9th August,  1990  

stipulating areas and routes to be operated by the STUs to the  

complete or partial exclusion of other persons.  Clause 5, 6  

and 7 of the Scheme are relevant for our purpose and hence  

extracted hereunder :-

- 12 -

(5) All  future  operations  of  routes  on  the  National Highways falling within the State shall be  undertaken  by  the  State  Transport  Undertakings  and  the private operators in the ratio of 30:30 which  shall be determined on the basis of the passenger  road transport needs, as so assessed by the State  Transport  Commissioner,  Punjab,  from  time  to  time.  The  existing  operations  of  the  State  Transport  Undertakings on the National Highways falling within  the State are given in Annexures ‘D’ and D-1.  

(6) all future operations of routes on the State  Highways other than the routes specified in clauses  2, 3 and 4 shall be undertaken by the State Transport  Undertakings and private operators in the ratio of  50:50 which shall be determined on the basis of the  passenger road transport needs, as so assessed by the  State  Transport  Commissioner,  Punjab,  from  time  to  time.  The existing operation of routes of the State  Transport  Undertakings  on  the  State  Highways  are  given in Annexure ‘E’ and ‘E-1’.  

(7) All future operations of routes other than the  routes specified in clauses 2,3 and 4 on District and  other  roads  shall  be  undertaken  by  the  State  Transport Undertakings and private operators in the  ratio of 50:50 on the basis of the passenger road  transport  roads,  as  to  assessed  by  the  State  Transport  Commissioner,  Punjab,  from  the  time  to  time.”  [Page 8 of the Written Notes].

18. Annexure ’A’ of the Scheme deals with monopoly  

routes operated by the STUs viz., Punjab Roadways and Pepsu  

Road Transport Corporation.  Annexure ’B’ of the Scheme deals  

with the list of National Highways.  Annexure ’C’ of the Scheme  

deals with a list of State Highways Roads.  Annexure ’D’ deals  

with the list of routes falling on National Highways (Punjab  

Roadways).  Annexure ‘D-1’ deals with list of routes falling on  

National Highways (Pepsu Road Transport Corporation). Annexure  

‘E’ deals with list of routes falling on State Highways (Punjab  

Roadways) and Annexure ‘E-1’ deals with list of routes falling

- 13 -

on State Highways (Pepsu Road Transport Corporation).  Future  

operations of services on the above mentioned routes have to be  

undertaken by the STUs and private operators in the prescribed  

ratio mentioned in the Scheme.

19. The 1990 Scheme was modified by the Government  

of Punjab in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 102  

of the  Act and a notification to that effect was published in  

the Punjab Government Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 21.10.1997.  

Clause 5 of the 1990 Scheme was amended and the ratio 30:30 was  

substituted by  75:25 and the ratio 50:50 mentioned in Clauses  

6 and 7 was substituted by 50:50 are 40:60 respectively as per  

the  amended  scheme  dated  21.10.1997.   The  Tribunal  in  its  

orders dated 27.04.2005 as well as on 28.10.2005 has stated  

that the routes for which applications were preferred by the  

STUs for the grant of permits were notified routes under the  

Scheme.  All the parties had proceeded as if the routes in  

question were included in the 1990 Scheme.  Before the Tribunal  

it was represented by the private operators that though the  

Pepsu Transport Corporation was granted a Stage Carriage Permit  

on  the  route  notified,  the  same  was  surrendered  by  the  

Corporation  on  1.6.2002  and  the  Punjab  Roadways  though  was  

granted permit had failed to utilize  the permit.  Few other  

instances  were  also  pointed  out  where  inspite  of  grant  of  

permits the STUs had either surrendered the permits or were not  

operating the permits on the routes notified.  A copy of such  

an order dated 19.7.2007 passed by the Secretary RTA,  

- 14 -

Jullandhar was produced before this Court and it was submitted  

that Punjab Roadways, Pathankot had surrendered 29 return trips  

on the route between Amritsar and Pathankot.  Further it was  

also  contended  that  due  to  surrendering  of  large  number  of  

return trips on the route, the public of that area was put to  

considerable hardships and inconvenience.  Consequently it was  

pointed out that there is no illegality in granting regular  

permits  to  the  private  operators  in  the  vacancies  occurred  

either due to surrender of permits or not utilizing the permits  

or on omission to apply for permits in the notified routes.  

20. The  Tribunal  in  Appeal  No.  46  of  2000  and  

connected matters, decided on 28.10.2005 has taken a view that  

where  an  STU  applies  for  permit  and  if  it  is  granted  and,  

thereafter the STUs fail to operate the services inspite of  

grant, they will lose their right and share of the permits  

unless the route in question is Inter-state or monopoly routes.  

Further, it was also held if the permit is not utilized within  

the maximum period of six months under Sub-rule 5 of Rule 128  

of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 the RTA could revoke  

the sanction of the permit.  Further it was also held in such a  

case RTA has a right to issue regular permits and not temporary  

permits as provided in the proviso to Section 104 of the Act.

- 15 -

21. We find it difficult to accept the reasoning of  

the Tribunal. In our view, there is complete misreading of the  

provisions of 1990 Scheme as amended and provisions of Chapter  

VI of the Act. Provisions of this Chapter confer a monopoly on  

the State in respect of transport service to the partial or  

complete exclusion of other persons.   Section 98 says that  

provisions of above mentioned Chapter and the Rules or orders  

made  thereunder  shall  have  effect  notwithstanding,  anything  

inconsistent contained in Chapter V or in any other law for the  

time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue  

of any such law.  Section 99  of the Act deals with preparation  

and publication of proposal regarding road transport services  

of an STU which enables the State Government to formulate a  

proposal for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate,  

economical and properly co-coordinated road transport service,  

by giving particulars of the nature of the service proposed to  

be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and other  

relevant particulars respecting thereof and the Government is  

also empowered to publish such a proposal in the gazette in  

public interest.  After calling for objections to the proposed  

scheme,  and examining the same the scheme has to be published  

in accordance with the provisions of Section 100 of the Act.  

The  scheme  once  published  is  law  and  chapter  VI  has  an  

overriding  effect  on  Chapter  V  of  the  Act  and  it  operates  

against  everyone  unless  it  is  modified  or  cancelled  by  the  

State Government.

- 16 -

22. The scheme also provides for a ratio with regard  

to the grant of permits on the notified routes between STUs and  

private operators  which is fixed based on the assessment made  

by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab on the basis of the  

passenger road transport needs which is legally binding on all.  

The  provisions  of  the  scheme  including  the  list  of  routes  

mentioned in the various annexures, and the ratio fixed are  

statutory in character which cannot be tinkered with by the  

RTAs and have overriding effect over the powers of RTAs under  

Chapter V of the Act.  The power to cancel the Scheme or modify  

the Scheme rests with the State Government under Section 102 of  

the Act and the RTA and the Tribunal have committed a grave  

error in tampering with the Scheme as well as disturbing the  

ratio fixed by the Scheme by granting regular permits to the  

private  sector  from  the  quota  earmarked  for  STUs.   Once  a  

scheme  is  approved  and  published,  private  operators  have  no  

right to claim regular permits to operate their vehicles in the  

notified  area,  route  or  portion  thereof  upsetting  the  ratio  

fixed.  Since the scheme makes provision for partial exclusion,  

the private operators are not completely excluded, they may get  

regular permits on the notified route or portion thereof in  

accordance  with  the  terms  and  conditions  laid  down  in  the  

scheme and within the quota earmarked for them.

- 17 -

23. Therefore, a combined reading of Sections 99,  

100 and 104 in the light of Section 2(38) of the Act, makes it  

clear that once a scheme is published under Section 100 in  

relation to any area or route or portion thereof, whether in  

complete  or  partial  exclusion  of  other  persons,  no  persons  

other  than  STUs  may  operate  on  the  notified  area  or  route  

except as provided in the scheme itself.  Reference can be made  

to the decisions of this Court in  Adarsh Travels Bus Service  

and Anr. vs.  State of U.P. and Ors., (1985) 4 SCC 557,  U.P.  

State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow  vs.  Anwar Ahmad and  

Ors. (1997) 3 SCC 191,  Ram Krishna Verma  vs   State of U.P.  

(1992) 2 SCC 620.

24. Section 104 of the Act specifically restricts  

the grant of permits in respect of notified area or notified  

route.  The said provision is extracted hereunder:-

Restriction  on  grant  of  permits  in  respect  of  a  notified area or notified route---Where a scheme has  been published under sub-section (3) of section 100  in respect of any notified area or notified route,  the  State  Transport  Authority  or  the  Regional  Transport Authority, 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  by  the  State  Transport  Undertaking  in  respect  of  any  notified  area  nor  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  such  permit  shall  cease  to  be  effective  on  the  issue  of  a  permit  to  the  State  transport  undertaking  in  respect  of  that  area  or  route.

- 18 -

25.      The above mentioned provision states where a scheme  

has  been  published  under  Sub-section  3  of  Section  100  in  

respect of any notified area or notified route, STA or the RTA  

as  the  case  may  be  shall  not  grant  any  permit  except  in  

accordance with the provisions of the Scheme.  An exception has  

been carved out in the proviso to Section 104 stating, where no  

application for permit has been made by the STU in respect of  

any notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved  

scheme, the STA or the RTA, as the case  may be, may grant  

temporary permits to any person in respect of any such notified  

area  or  notified  route  subject  to  the  condition  that  such  

permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of permit to  

the STU in respect of that area or route.  In our view same is  

the situation in respect of a case where an STU inspite of  

grant of permit does not operate the service or surrenders the  

permit granted or not utilizing the permit. In such a situation  

it should be deemed that no application for permit has been  

made by the STU and it is open to the RTA to grant temporary  

permit  if  there  is  a  temporary  need.   By  granting  regular  

permits  to  the  private  operators  RTA  will  be  upsetting  the  

ratio fixed under the scheme which is legally impermissible.  

In Anwar Ahmad (supra) this Court had occasion to examine the  

scope of the proviso to Section 104 and held as follows:-

- 19 -

“it would, therefore, be seen that where the  scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of  Section  100  in  respect  of  any  notified  area  or  notified route, the State Transport Authority or the  Regional  Transport  Authority,  as  the  case  may  be,  shall not grant any permit except in accordance 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 notified routes as per the  scheme, temporary permits may be granted to private  operators.  Thereby, it would be clear that temporary  inconvenience  to  traveling  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 attempting to wear the  mask  of  inconvenience  of  traveling  public  to  infiltrate into forbidden notified area, route or  portion thereof to sabotage the scheme…..”

26. We  may  point  out  if  the  public  is  put  to  

hardship or inconvenience due to failure on the part of the  

STUs to operate services inspite of grant of permits for a  

considerable  long  time,  it  is  always  open  to  the  State  

Government to modify the scheme and make appropriate changes in  

the ratio fixed on the basis of passenger road transport needs  

as  assessed  by  the  State  Transport  Commissioner  but  such  a  

power is not conferred on the RTA and till that is done no  

private operator can operate his service on any part or portion  

of   a  notified  area  or  notified  route  upsetting  the  ratio  

prescribed in the scheme except on a temporary permit granted  

under the proviso to  Section 104 of the Act.  Reference can be

- 20 -

made to the judgments of this court in UPSRTC and Another  vs.  

Sanjidha Banu and Ors. (2005) 10 SCC 280;  M. Madan Mohan Rao &  

Ors. Vs.  UOI & Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 348; U.P. SRTC vs.  Omaditya  

Verma (2005) 4 SCC 424 for understanding  the general purport  

of such Schemes and the provisions of the Act.

27. Article 226 of the Constitution of India confers  

extra ordinary jurisdiction on the High Court to issue high  

prerogative writs for enforcement of fundamental rights or any  

other purpose, the powers are of course wide and expansive but  

not to be exercised as an appellate Authority re-appreciating  

the finding of facts recorded by a Tribunal or an authority  

exercising   quasi  judicial  functions.   Power  is  highly  

discretionary  and  supervisory  in  nature.   Grant  of  stage  

carriage  permits  is  primarily  a  statutory  function  to  be  

discharged by the RTA exercising powers under Section 72 of the  

Act and not by the High Court exercising the Constitutional  

powers under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.  

A writ Court seldom interferes with the orders passed by such  

authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions, unless there  

is serious procedural illegality or irregularity or they have  

acted in excess of their jurisdiction.  If there is any dispute  

on  the  proper  implementation  of  the  ratio  or  inclusion  or  

exclusion  of  any  route  or  area  in  the  Scheme,  the  RTA  can  

always examine the same, if it is moved.  The direction given  

by the High Court to the RTA to grant regular permits to the  

private operators, is therefore, patently illegal.

- 21 -

28.  We therefore, allow all these Civil Appeals as  

follows:-

(i)    The judgments of the High Court in C.W.P. No.8483/2005  

and in C.W.P. No.11768 of 2005 are set aside;

(ii)    The order dated 21.08.2000, passed by the Commissioner  

affirmed by the order dated 27.4.2005 of the State Transport  

Appellate Tribunal is upheld;

(iii)    The common judgment of the High Court dated 1.5.2007  

in C.W.P. No.11916 of 2006 and connected cases and also the  

orders dated 28.10.2005, 17.12.2004, 25.8.2005, 3.10.2005 and  

1.8.2005 passed by the Commissioner directing grant of regular  

permits to the private operators are set aside.  

(iv) This judgment would not stand in the way of RTAs in  

granting temporary permits if there is temporary need in the  

notified routes included in the 1990 scheme as amended in the  

year 1997.

......……………………….J. (R.V. Raveendran)

…....……………………..J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

New Delhi; April 27, 2010.