http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6716-6719 of 1999

PETITIONER: U.P.State Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman

RESPONDENT: Omaditya Verma & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/04/2005

BENCH: ASHOK  BHAN & A.K. MATHUR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

A.K. MATHUR, J.

               In all these four appeals,  the questions of law  and facts  involved are common, as such they are disposed of by this common  order.

               This case has a chequered history. But before we enter  into  the chequered history, a few important facts may be noticed.   The route from Bijnore \026Noorpur-Chandpur  was notified under a  scheme which was published in the Official Gazette of the State of  U.P. on February 12,1952. Thereafter, by another Gazette  Notification dated October 15,1962, a scheme was prepared from  Bojnore to Muzaffarnagar route of Meerut region. It was directed that  the State Road Transport service shall commence operation from  November 15,1962 or thereafter. Thereafter, on September 28,1977,  another route was notified from Muzaffarnagar to Bijnore via Bhopa,  Morna and Rawalighat. This was again modified by another  Notification dated 3rd September, 1994 after hearing objections,  Muzaffarnagar to Bijnor route of Meerut region i.e. Muzaffarngar via  Jansath, Meerapur, Dewal instead of via Bhopa and Morna and  Rawlighat.  As a result of these two aforesaid schemes the entire  route, Muzaffarnagar Jansath, Meerapur, Dewal to Bijnore stood  notified.  Therefore, these two schemes are  the subject matter of the  present litigation.  Relevant portions of these two notifications i.e.  Notification    dated February 12, 1952  and  September 3, 1994  are  

reproduced herein below.

NOTIFICATION DATED FEBRUARY 12, 1952. REGION      NAME OF THE     DATE OF                    Number      TYPE AND CARRYING           NUMBER OF SERVICES            ROUTE        COMMENCEMENT    OF  SRT    CAPACITY OF         OPERATED BYOTHERS                         OF OPERATION OF    SERVICES  VEHICLES                  ON THE ROUTE  OR                         STATE  ROAD                      STATE               OTHER        PA RT OF IT                         TRANSPORT                        EXCLUSIVELY 1                    2                             3                                    4                    5                        6                       7 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BAREILLY

XX       XX              XX                  XX         XX              XX

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

18. Bijnor-Noorpur-    1.2.49                 2              Stage Carriage      Nil            Nil chandpur                                      25-40 Seater.

Xx              xx                      xx              xxxx            xx -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTIFICATION DATED SEPTEMBER 3, 1994.

Serial    No.   Notification no. and date                 Name of the approved                                  Modification proposed             By which the scheme was                scheme in which the                 Approved                       modification is proposed. 1               2                               3                               4

1.               4790-T-XXX-2-B-60, dated   Scheme regarding  to Bijnore     The approved sc heme        October 15,1962 and   no.     to Muzaffarnagar  route              mentioned in Column- 3      4517/XXX-2-429-86,               of Meerut Region.                      Is modified to  cover the       dated September 28,1977                                                      route bet ween Bijnor and Muzaffarnagar  via Jansath-Meerapur- Dowal instead of the  Route via Bhopa and  Morna -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------

These civil appeals on grant of special leave have been filed against   the common order  passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad  High Court dated September 26,1997 whereby the High Court  allowed  four writ petitions i.e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 9990,  15746, 20187 & 23496 of 1997 and set aside the order dated July 17,  1990 and quashed the same and directed the Secretary, State  Transport Authority, State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to issue permit  to all grantees who have not been issued permits on the basis of the  resolution dated  June 14-15, 1993 forthwith and without any delay.  Aggrieved against this common order the present appeals were filed  by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter  to be referred to as "UPSRTC").

       At the INITIAL stage, notice was directed to be issued on  November 13, 1998 on the application for condonation of delay as  well as on the SLP but no interim order was passed.  Thereafter,  leave was granted on November 18, 1999. On May 11, 2000  Interlocutory applications were dismissed.  Now, the appeals have  been set down before us for hearing.  Office report dated February  21, 2005 shows that in CA 6716 of 1999, all the 23 respondents were

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

served,  excepting Respondent Nos.17 & 18 who are represented by  Ms. Abha Jain and M/s.Mitter & Mitter & Co., the rest of the  respondents have not chosen to enter appearance.  In Civil Appeal  No. 6717 of 1999 there are 21 respondents, all of them though  served by dasti, Respondent Nos.1 to 12, 14 and 16 to 21  have not  chosen to appear and contest the proceedings. Respondent Nos.13  and 15 are represented through M/s.Mitter & Mitter & Co. and  Mr.Sunil Kumar Jain, Advocate respectively.  In Civil Appeal No.   6718 of 1999 there are three respondents and all of them have been  served by dasti. But they have not entered appearance.  In Civil  Appeal No.  6719 of 1999  there are three respondents. All of them  have been served but they have not chosen to enter appearance.   Hence, all these appeals are before us.                          The State Transport Authority of U.P. by resolution dated June  14-15 of 1993 granted 38 regular stage carriage permit in the route,  namely, Muzaffarnagar- Chhajlet via Gangabridge, Bijnor and  Noorpur. Out of 38 persons, 11 persons were issued with necessary  permits in the month of July, 1993. Thereafter,  series of writ petitions  were filed in the High Court. The first writ petition was filed by Sh.  Harpal Singh  being Writ Petition No.3511 of 1993  before the  Lucknow Bench of the High Court in which an interim stay order was  passed on August 16, 1993 restraining the State Transport Authority  from issuing permits on the route, in question.  The Secretary, State  Transport Authority, Lucknow passed an order on July 31, 1993   directing  11 permit holders to ply their vehicles on Muzaffarnagar- Chhajlet via Jolly-Jarwar- Katia route.  The Chairman, State  Transport Authority, U.P.,  Lucknow  passed another order on  February 2, 1995 directing  the said 11 permit holders to ply their  vehicles  on Muzaffarnagar-Chhajlet route via Jansath-Meerapur. The  order passed by Secretary, State Transport Authority,  U.P., Lucknow  on July 31, 1993 was challenged  by one Smt. Saima Jamal  in a writ  petition  being Writ Petition No.4250 of 1994 at Lucknow Bench of the  High Court.  Another writ petition being Writ Petition No.7875 of 1994  was filed by one Sanjeev Kumar  challenging the order passed by the  Secretary, State Transport Authority, U.P., Lucknow  on July 31,  1993. A subsequent writ petition being Writ Petition No.6774 of 1995  was also filed by one Smt. Shashi Goel  challenging the order passed  by the Chairman, State Transport Authority,  U.P., Lucknow on  February 2, 1995. The two writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 7875 of  1994 and Writ Petition No.6774 of 1995 filed before the Allahabad  High Court  were decided by the  Division Bench by its order dated  May 5, 1995 and  order dated July 31, 1993 passed by the Secretary,  State Transport Authority, U.P., Lucknow and the order dated  February 2, 1995 passed by the Chairman, State Transport Authority,  U.P. were quashed and the State Transport Authority was directed to  pass a specific order indicating the route for which the permit was  granted in the meeting of  June 14-15, 1993.  This order dated May 5,  1995 passed in Writ Petition No.7875 of 1994 and Writ Petition  No.6774 of 1995 was challenged  in Special Leave Petition ) No.  13594 of 1995 which was decided by this Court  by order dated July  21, 1995.  The following order was passed by this Court:         " Heard  the counsel for both the parties.

         Leave granted.

           We are of the opinion that there are several  disputed questions of facts and law which  require a clear and comprehensive investigation.  For example,  one of the questions is whether  the original permit granted to the petitioners on  the route Muzaffarnagar to Chajlet via Meerapur,  Ganga Bridge & Noorpur runs along the route  Muzaffarnagar, Joli, Behra Sadar, Jadwad Katia  & Meerapur. There is also a controversy as to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

whether the route Muzaffarnagar to Meerapur is  nationalized or not and further whether  there  are any High Court orders precluding the grant  of permit on the sector Muzaffarnagar to  Meerapur. In all these circumstances, we are of  the opinion that all these matters should be sent  to S.T.A.T. , which shall treat the writ petitions  filed in High Court as appeals and after hearing  all the parties, dispose of the matters in  accordance with law."          Therefore, by this order the matter stood remanded to the State  Transport Appellate Tribunal for its decision. In pursuance of the  aforesaid order passed by this Court, three other writ petitions  being  Writ Petition No.4250 of 1994 filed by one Saima Jamal  before the  Lucknow Bench of the High Court, Writ Petition No.6774 of 1995 filed  by Smt. Shashi Goel and Writ Petition No.7875 of 1994 filed by Sanjiv  Kumar  were transferred to the Tribunal and they were registered as  Appeal Nos. 127, 142 and 143 of 1995 respectively.  The S.T.A.T. by  its order dated January 27, 1996 allowed the appeals and set aside  the orders dated July 31, 1993 & October 25, 1994 passed by the  Secretary, State Transport Authority, U.P., Lucknow;  and order dated  February 2, 1995 passed by the Chairman, State Transport Authority,  U.P., Lucknow. It was held by the Tribunal that the original permits  in  pursuance of the resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 were granted via  Jansath-Meerapur.  Till that time, the notification dated September 3,  1994 had not come into force notifying  the route Muzaffarnagar-  Bijnore via Jansath-Meerapur as a notified route and the impugned  resolution passed by the Regional Transport Authority was not hit by  the notified route.  But it appears that perhaps inadvertently  all the  parties were totally oblivious of the fact that Bijnor- Noorpur-  Chandpur  route was notified under the scheme on February 12,  1952. Therefore, no permit could have been granted covering Bijnor-  Noorpur  route up to Chajlet. Be that as it may, the resolution was  passed by the Regional Transport Authority granting permit on the  route Muzaffarnagar \026 Jansath, Meerapur. Dewal, Bijnor and Chajlet  covering Bijnor to Noorpur notified route.                   The order passed by the Tribunal on January 27, 1996 after  remand was again challenged by Smt. Shashi Goel by filing two writ  petitions in the High Court at Allahabad.  Both the writ petitions were  dismissed    by the High Court of Allahabad by its judgment dated  April 30, 1996 and the order of the Tribunal was upheld.  The said  order dated April 30, 1996 passed by the High Court of Allahabad  was again challenged before this Court in Special  Leave Petition )  Nos. 14269 and 14270 of 1996. However, both the Special Leave  Petitions were dismissed after hearing counsel for the parties by  order dated August 5, 1996. The litigation did not stop here. One  Dharmendra Singh  filed Writ Petition No.37607 of 1995 before the  High Court at Allahabad challenging grant of 38 permits by resolution   dated June 14-15, 1993. This writ petition was dismissed by the High  Court on March 3, 1997. Again a review application was also filed  before the High Court which was also dismissed by the High Court by   its order dated July 24, 1997. Since permits were not granted to 21  grantees, another writ petition being Writ Petition No. 9990 of 1997  was filed  by Omaditya Verma and 20 others before the High Court of  Allahabad seeking direction against the Chairman, State Transport  Authority and Secretary, State Transport Authority, U.P., Lucknow for  issuing permits in their favour  in pursuance of the resolution dated  June 14-15, 1993. That  writ petition was heard and Shri M.P.Dubey,  Standing Counsel  sought time to file impleadment application and  Shri A.D.Saunders  also moved an application for impleadment on  behalf of Dharmendra Singh as a respondent.  However, the High  Court directed learned counsel for the writ petitioners to implead the  U.P. State Road Transport Corporation - present appellant  as a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

respondent.  However, in the meanwhile on July 10-11, 1997, 16  permits were issued in favour of grantees.  An objection was filed  before the Secretary, State Transport Authority, U.P.Lucknow,  requesting him not to issue permits because of the stay order passed  by High Court at  Lucknow bench in Writ Petition No. 2600 of 1993,  same were not vacated by the High Court nor modified, therefore,  issuance of permit on July 10-11, 1997 in pursuance of the resolution  passed by the State Transport Authority on June 14-15, 1993 was not  correct.  The Secretary, State Transport Authority, U.P. Lucknow   passed an order on July 17, 1997 directing the writ petitioners to  deposit their permits  and stop plying  the vehicles. The said order  dated July 17, 1997 ultimately formed  subject matter of the present  writ petition before the High Court.  The Division Bench after hearing  the parties at length   held that there was no justification for the  Secretary, State Transport Authority, U.P., Lucknow to pass the  aforesaid order when the resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 has  traveled   right up to the Apex Court and attained the seal of approval,  The stay order passed in Writ Petition No.2600 of 1993 should not  have been utilized by the Secretary, State Transport Authority to  recall the permits issued in favour of the writ petitioners. It was further  observed by the High Court that in fact   objections were frivolous and   non-existent because the resolution of the Regional Transport  Authority passed on June 14-15, 1993 has traveled through series of  litigations and final order was passed by the High Court of Allahabad  and subsequently affirmed by the Apex Court, as such, it was not  proper for the State Transport Authority to have disturbed that order.   Secondly, it was also observed by the High Court that no opportunity  was afforded to the persons whose permits were recalled without  hearing them or without giving them notice. It was further observed  that the impact of the notification dated September 3, 1994 had been  considered at length and no illegality was found on that basis and the  resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 granting permits to the writ  petitioners.  It was further observed by the High Court that it was not  open to be considered. The attention of the High Court was also  invited to an order passed in Writ Petition No.2576 of 1997 by the  Lucknow Bench of the High Court on August 12, 1997. In that writ  petition it was observed that in view of the notification dated  September 3, 1994 it would not be advisable  to grant permit as the  route has been notified. Learned Division Bench held that in view of  the earlier decision of the Apex Court in these proceedings the  controversy could not be reopened.   In this connection a reference  was made by the High Court to a decision of this Court in the case of  State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle reported in  JT 1996 (3) SC 567. In that case it was observed that when self- same order was confirmed by the Apex Court then the order of the  Tribunal  stood merged with the order passed by this Court.  A similar  view was also expressed in the case of  Narayana Bharma Sangal  Trust vs. Swami Prakashananda & Ors. reported in JT 1997 (5) SC  100. In the light of above facts the Division Bench held that it is not  open to the respondents to challenge the grant of permits on the  basis of the notification dated September 3, 1994 when the matter  was remanded back to the Tribunal by the Apex Court by order dated  July 21, 1995 and it was also observed that it finally decided the  issues and operates as res judicata. It was observed that the  resolution passed on June 14-15, 1993 granting 38 permits more  than four years have passed yet permission has not been granted.  Therefore, direction was issued to implement the resolution dated  June 14-15, 1993. Hence, the present appeals on grant of special  leave petition by this Court.

               In fact, we have reproduced the relevant portions of the  two notifications in the beginning of this judgment. The main purpose  of reproduction of both notifications was to show that  the route in  question i.e. Muzaffarnagar to Chajlet covers the notified route from  Bijnor to Noorpur which is notified route since 1952.  We fail to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

understand how permit could be granted by the resolution dated June  14-15, 1993  from  Muzaffarnagar to Chajlet in face of the notified  scheme of 1952 from Bijnor to Noorpur.  The scheme was of total  exclusion. In fact the resolution dated June 14-15, 1993  is totally  unmindful of the 1952 notification that the route from Bijnor to  Noorpur  which falls on the route from Muzaffarnagar  to Chhjlet is  notified route.  This fact was no where brought to the notice of the  authorities either before the Regional Transport Authority or State  Transport Authority or before the High Court of Allahabad  or for that  matter to the Apex Court.  This Court by order dated July 21, 1995  only remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for its decision.  In  those appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the  present appellant i.e. UPSRTC was not a party. The dispute before  this court was between the operators and the authorities and the  UPSRTC was not made a party when the whole matter was  remanded before the Tribunal. Had the UPSRTC been made a party  before the Apex Court they would have brought to the notice of the  Apex Court that a portion of the route from Bijnor to Noorpur is  notified route.  When the entire matter was remanded back to the  Tribunal by the Apex Court by Order dated 21.7.1995, another  notification was issued on September 3, 1994 whereby the route from  Muzaffarnagar to Bijnor via Jansath, Meerapur and Dewal was also  notified.  Strangely enough UPSRTC was not party before Apex  Court or before STAT.  It is for the first time in 1993 before High Court  the UPSRTC was impleaded as a respondent. It is true that when the  resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 was passed at that time the route  from Muzaffarnagar to Bijnor via Jansath Meerapur & Dewal was not  notified but the route from Bijnor to Noorpur was already notified on  February 12, 1952 and we do not understand how could the Regional  Transport Authority and State Transport Authority ignore this fact that  the portion from Bijnor to Noorpur which falls on the route from  Muzaffarnagar to Chajlet was notified, permits were granted on this  notified route. This ignorance appears to be bona fide as nobody  seems to have been cognizant of the notification dated February 12,  1952.  The appellant \026 UPSRTC could have been alive to the  situation and should have moved the Tribunal and should have  brought this fact to their notice but  the appellant did not choose to  take any step. We cannot appreciate their lack of vigilance. Be that as  it may,  the authorities issuing permits  from Muzaffarnagar to Chajlat  should have  at least  known that a portion of the route falling from  Bijnor to Noorpur  is a notified route.  It is true that this matter has  traveled  up to the Apex Court and it has gone through various  litigation but nobody brought to the notice of the authorities  that the  route from Bijnor to Noorpur  is notified one and no permit could be  granted on this route.  It is needless to state that once it is  nationalized route, there is prohibition to permit any private vehicle  to  ply except by amending the scheme.  It is the mandate of the law and  that cannot be ignored.  More so, at the time when this order was  passed by the Division Bench of the High Court the route from  Muzaffarnagar to Bijnore via Jansath, Meerapur and Dweal stood  notified  on September 3, 1994.  We regret to say that the Division  Bench of the High Court has overlooked this aspect of the matter and  proceeded to decide the matter on the assumption that the effect of  this Notification dated September 3, 1994 has already been taken  into consideration. We  fail to appreciate this aspect. Once the route  from Muzaffarnagar to Bijnor via Jansath, Meerapur and Dweal has  already been notified on September 3, 1994 how can the High Court  direct the appellant to grant permit on the aforesaid route. It is true  that when resolution  which was passed on June 14-15, 1993 by then  the notification dated September 3, 1994 had not come into operation  but once the scheme under notification dated September 3, 1994  came into operation and the whole route from Muzaffarnagar  to  Bijnore stood notified and the route from Bijnore to Noorpur was  already notified by notification dated February 12, 1952, how can  mandamus be issued by the High Court directing the authorities to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

grant permits to the 38 operators.  This Court while remanding the  matter did not go into all these questions.  This Court only remanded  the matter to the Tribunal as disputed questions of facts were  involved.   The other special leave petitions were dismissed in limine.   That does not amount to merger of the High Court order with that of  this Court’s order.  The dismissal in limine does not amount to  upholding of the law propounded in the decision sought to be  appealed against .  This is a settled proposition of law now.   Reference may be made to    

               Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. State of Bihar   reported  in 1986 (4) SCC 146

"Held:         The dismissal of a special leave petition in limine by a  non-speaking order does not justify any inference that by  necessary implication the contentions raised in the special  leave petition on the merits of the case have been rejected  by Supreme Court.  The effect of a non-speaking order of  dismissal of a special leave petition without anything more  indicating the grounds or reasons of its dismissal must, by  necessary implication, be taken to be that Supreme Court  had decided only that it was not a fit case where special  leave should be granted.  It cannot be assumed that it had  necessarily decided by implication all the questions in  relation to the merits of the award, which was under  challenge before Supreme Court in the special leave  petition.

       A writ petition is a wholly different and distinct  proceeding.  Although questions which can be said to have  been decided by Supreme Court expressly, implicitly or  even constructively while dismissing the special leave  petition cannot be reopened in a subsequent writ  proceeding before the High Court, but neither on the  principle of res judicata nor on any principle of public  policy analogous thereto, would the order of Supreme  Court dismissing the special leave petition operate to bar  the trial of identical issues in a separate proceeding  namely, the writ proceeding before the High Court merely  on the basis of an uncertain assumption that the issues  must have been decided by Supreme Court at least by  implication.  The exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of  the High Court to grant leave under Article 226 is to be  guided by established legal principles.  It will not be a  sound exercise of that discretion to refuse to consider a  writ petition on its merits solely on the ground that a  special leave petition filed by the petitioner in the Supreme  Court had been dismissed by a non-speaking order."

       Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association  Vs.  Union  of India and  Anrs.  Reported in 1989 (4) SCC 187 "\005Articles 226 and 136 \026 Res judicata \026 Supreme Court  dismissing SLP in limine \026 Held, decision of High Court  against which the SLP had been filed would not thereby  operate as res judicata \026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908,  Section 11"

       P. Nallammal and Anr. Vs.   State Represented by   Inspector of Police  reported in  1999 (6) SCC 559

"\005- Arts. 136 and 141 \026 Effect of grant/dismissal of SLP \026  Dismissal of SLP does not amount to upholding of the law  propounded in the decision sought to be appealed against"

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

       Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore   Vs. Shree  Majunatheaware Packing Products & Camphor Works ,     reported in  1998 (1) SCC 598    "\005 - Art. 136 \026 Summary dismissal of SLP \026 Effeft \026 Held,  does not mean approval  of the view taken by the High  Court"

       This Court while remanding the matter to the Tribunal  categorically stated that  all these matters should be sent to the State  Transport Appellate Tribunal which shall treat the writ petitions filed in  the High Court as appeals and after hearing  all the parties, dispose  of the matters in accordance with law.  This Court never expressed  any opinion on the merits of the case whatsoever.  Therefore, the  dismissal of SLPs pertaining to the route in question by various  orders of this Court neither amounts to res judicata nor does it  amount that order passed by the High Court amounts to upholding  the law propounded in the decision sought to be appealed against.   More so, the effect of these two notifications i.e. February 12, 1952  and September 3, 1994 were not considered by this Court or High  Court or Tribunal or STA.  

       Once a scheme is notified it prohibits the plying of private  vehicle except as permitted by Scheme.  Both Schemes nowhere  permit operation by private operators.  This is a settled proposition of  law that in notified Scheme private operator can operate except  permitted by the Scheme.  In this connection reference may be made  to the decision of this Court in the case of Karnataka State Road  Transport Corporation vs. Ashrfulla Khan & Ors. reported in (2002) 2  SCC 560 wherein Their Lordships after considering earlier decisions  of the Constitution Benches observed as under :

               " This means that even in those cases  where the notified route and the route applied for  run over a common sector, the curtailment by  virtue of the notified Scheme would be by  excluding that portion of the route or, in other  words,  the ’road’ common to both. The  distinction  between ’route’ as the notional line  and ’road’ as the physical track disappears in  the working of Chapter IV-A, because you  cannot curtail the route without curtailing a  portion of the road, and the ruling of the Court to  which we have referred, would also show that  even if the route was different, the area at least  would be the same. The ruling of the Judicial  Committee cannot be made applicable to the  Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Chapter IV-A,  where the intention is to exclude  private  operators completely from running over certain  sectors or routes vested in State  Transport  Undertakings. In our opinion, therefore, the  appellants were rightly held to be disentitled to  run over those portions of their routes which  were notified as part of the Scheme. Those  portions cannot be said to be different routes,  but must be regarded as portions of the routes  of the private operators, from which the private  operators stood excluded under  Section 68-F(2)  ) (iii) of the Act.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

       In S.Abdul Khader Saheb v. Mysore Revenue  Appellate Tribunal it was held by this Court  that  once a Scheme is for total exclusion of operation  of stage carriage services by operators other  than the State Transport Undertaking, the  authorities cannot grant permit under Chapter IV  of the Motor Vehicles Act on any portion of a  notified route.  In Mysore SRTC v. Mysore State  Transport Appellate Tribunal it was held that  it  is not permissible to grant permit on a portion of  a notified route which has an effect to ply a  stage carriage on the same line of the notified  route excepting an intersection."

In view of the fact that the route from Bijnor to Noorpur  was  notified way back in 1952, no permit could have been issued in  pursuance of the resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 and likewise  under notification dated September 3, 1994 when the route from  Muzaffarnagar to Bijnor had been notified, no permit could have been  granted on the aforesaid route as both schemes are of total  exclusion.. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the  case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Supra),  the  question no more remains res integra and  it is settled principle of law  that no private operators could be permitted to operate on a notified  route except by modifing Scheme and after making provisions for the  same.

       As a result of our above discussion, we are of the opinion that  the view taken by the High Court of Allahabad cannot be sustained  and accordingly we allow all these appeals and set aside the  impugned order dated September 26, 1997  passed by  the High  Court of Allahabad  in Writ Petition Nos. 9990, 23496, 15746 and  20187 of 1997 and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.