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

PETITIONER: U.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN., LUCKNOW

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SANJEEV KUMAR & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/09/1998

BENCH: A.S. ANAND, B.N. KIRPAL.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: O R D E R Leave granted. After hearing learned counsel for  the  parties,  we are  of  the  opinion  that the interpretation placed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court on Section  104  of the  Motor  Vehicles  Act, 2988 is unexceptionable and calls for no interference.  We, however, find that the view  taken by  the  high Court to the effect that since the Corporation did not get the permits renewed, which were granted to it in 1987 with regard to the nationalised routed it could not ply its vehicles on the notified routes without a renewal permit for the reasons given by us in U.P.   State  Road  Transport Corporation vs.    Regional  Transport  Authority and others [C.A.  No.  4637 of 1998 (@SLP(C) No.   1992)  is  erroneous and cannot  be  sustained.   The reasons given by us in that judgment would apply insofar as this aspect is concerned  to this appeal  also.    With  these observations the appeal is disposed of.  No costs.