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

PETITIONER: U.P. STATE ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORP.,LUCKNOW THROUGH ITS GENE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ANWAR AHMED & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/09/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties.      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 Verma vs.  State   of U.P.  & Ors.  [(1992) 2  SCC 620], the scheme was  finalised and  published  in  the  Gazette.  Two 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  entrench upon  frozen field through back-door process  of forcing  the appellant  to obtain  all 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 the  Regional Transport  Authority to  consider the grant of  temporary permits  for the Ghaziabad to Saharanpur route and,  in the  meanwhile,  liberty  was  given  to  the appellant-Corporation to  lift the  permit granted  for  the route. When  the proceedings were taken out before the State Transport  Authority  to  grant  permits  that  necessitated filing of  the writ  petition. By  the impugned  order dated November  17,  1995  of  the  High  Court  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 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

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

by the  scheme with  restrictions imposed  thereunder.  Shri Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel, sought to rely upon proviso 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 beenpublished 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   anynotified  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 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 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 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  attempting to  wear the mask of inconvenience to travelling  public to  infigurate 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  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.      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 until it is varied according to law no private

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

operator has  any right  to camouflage  any devise to obtain temporary permits.  Under 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.      Under these  circumstances, the appeals are accordingly allowed but, in the circumstances, without costs.