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

PETITIONER: SMT. AFSAR JAHAN BEGUM ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (1)   604        1996 SCALE  (1)609

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH WRIT PETITION  (C) NOS.  8430, 8330  &  9521-29,  2497-2500, 8274-8275, 7437-38  OF 1981  AND C.A.  NO. 3191,  3192-93 OF 1981.                          O R D E R      Substitution allowed in W.P. (C) No. 8330/81.      All these  writ petitions and appeal are disposed of by common judgment  since common  question of  law  arises  for decision in these cases.      Admittedly,     the     routes     on     which     the petitioners/appellants are  seeking  to  intersect  and  ply their vehicles are notified routes. The notified routes were published and  became final  under Chapter  IV-A of  Act  4, 1939. The  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 introduced Chapter VI as a  special   provision  relating   to  the  State  transport undertakings.  Section   99   authorises   preparation   and publication of the proposal regarding road transport service of a  State transport  undertakings. Section  102 deals with cancellation or  modification of  the schemes.  It  provides that the  State Government  may, at any time, if it consider necessary in  the public  interest  so  to  do,  modify  any approved scheme  after giving  :  (i)  the  state  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.      Under  sub-section  (2),  the  State  Government  shall publish the  modification proposed  under sub-section (1) in the State  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 30 days from the publication in the official  gazette, the  time  and  place  at  which  any representation received  in this behalf will be heard by the State Government.      While the  appells are  pending, when it was brought to

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

our notice  that a  proposal has  been  made  by  the  State Government for  modification of the approved schemes, by our order dated  1.11.1995, we  have ordered  that  the  learned counsel appearing  for the  State should  verify  and  place before the  Court whether  the draft  modification has  been approved and  published as  requried under Section 102(2) of the Act  and also  to file  an affidavit  by a competent and responsible  officer  of  the  necessity  to  introduce  the modification of  the approved  schemes and  the action taken thereon. Pursuant thereto, the additional affidavit has been filed by K.K. Tiwari, R.T.O., Indore who has stated that the Government by  notification dated  21.2.1991 relaxed only to distance of  25 kms.  on the  nationalised route  to private operators under  certain conditions  and  restrictions.  The appellants are not entitled to the benefit of those corridor sheltes now  given under  the modified scheme and relaxation granted under  Section 102(2)  of the  Act. The petitioners, therefore, cannot  claim and benefit of relaxation. The have stated in the notification thus :      "And, Whereas,  the State  Government in      view of  additional demand  of transport      services  considers   necessary  in  the      public   interest   to   allow   private      operators to ply on hire or reward stage      carriages on  routes covered by the said      Schemes and  for that purpose desires to      modify  all  the  said  Schemes  in  the      manner as shown in the Schedules below:                      SCHEDULE           In each  of the  said schemes,  the      following  words  figures  and  brackets      shall be added at the end, namely :      "Notwithstandign anything  contained  in      this Scheme,  the private  operators may      be permitted  to ply Stage-Carriages for      hire or  reward subject to the following      conditions, namely :-      (1) Limit of exemption on notified route      shall not exceed 25 kilometers.      (2) The  Private operators shall ply the      stage carriages over the distance, other      than the distance of the notified routes      which shall  not be less than twice, the      distance of  the notified  route covered      by the permit ;      (3) Calculations  of limit  of exemption      of 25 kilometers on notified route shall      be made on the basis of total;      (4) This  exemption shall be application      to notified  routes  under  all  Scheme,      even though  the Schemes might have been      implemented after 1979;      (5)  The  Private  Operators  shall  not      pick-up or  set down  passengers on  the      notified route."      In Adarsh  Travels Bus Service vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [(1985) 4  SCC 557]  a  Constitution  Bench  of  this  Court considered Section 68-C, 68-D(3) and 68-FF read with Section 2(28-A of the Act 4, 1939 and had held that :      "Once  a   scheme  is   published  under      Section 68-D  in relation to any area or      route or portion thereof, whether to the      exclusion, complete or partial of  other      persons or  otherwise, no  person  other      than the State Transport Undertaking may

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

    operate on the notified area or notified      route except  as provided  in the scheme      itself. A necessary consequence of these      provisiosn is  that no  rpivate  operate      can operate  his vehicle  on any part or      portion or  a notified  are or  notified      route unless  authorised so to do by the      terms of  the scheme  itself. He may not      operate on  any part  or portion  of the      notified  route  or  area  or  the  mere      ground that  the  permit  as  originally      granted  to  him  covered  the  notified      route or area"      In this  view of  the matter,  the only relaxation from the frozen  notified route  or area  from the  scheme is  as provided in  the scheme itself. If any operator on any route intersecting the  notified route,  has of  necessity, to ply the vehicle  strictly  in  conformity  with  the  restrictiv corridor shelter and no more. The relaxation is not meant to sabotage  the   approved  scheme   but  to  subserve  public interest.      Shri Gambhir, learned counsel contended that in view of the relaxation  upto a  distance of 25 kms. been provided in the Scheme  as modified and notified under Section 102(2) of the Act,  all the  petitioners are  entitled to  ply in  the terms thereof. We cannot give any direction or relief to the petitioners in  these writ  petitions. It  is seen  that the Government having  approved the  routes, have  exercised the power under  Section 102(2)  of the  At and given benefit by intersecting the  approved routes only upto a distance of 25 kms. without  picking up  or setting  down the passengers on the modified  route,  strictly  subject  to  the  terms  and conditions mentioned therein. Under the terms and conditions mentioned   therein,    Under   those   circumstances,   the petitioners cannot be given any relief. But if they have any right under the modified scheme, then that would be a matter appropriately to be gone into by the RTA or STA, as the case may be,  after due notice to the State Transport Undertaking and all other interested persons.      The   writ   petitions   are   accordingly   dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. No costs.