11 December 1996
Supreme Court
Download

VIKRAM SHITOLE & ANR. Vs THE M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION & ORS.

Bench: K. RAMASWAMY,G.T. NANAVATI
Case number: Appeal (civil) 811 of 1986


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: VIKRAM SHITOLE & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/12/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench Miscellaneous petition No.572 of 1985 dated January 13,1986      The admitted  position is  that the  rote in  question, i.e. Gwalior  to Indore,  was notified under chapter IV-A of Motor Vehicles  Act ("Act  4 of  1939", for Short) which has been repealed  and reenacted  by motor  Vehicles Act  ,1088. After the approved route was published under section 68D(3), a scheme  was framed  under which  unemployed graduates were permitted under  "self employment  scheme"  to  operate  the stage carriages  and conditions.  It would  appear  that  to certain terms  and conditions.  It  would  appear  that  the appellants did not comply with the said terms and conditions as a  result of  which their  permits were  cancelled by the authorities Calling  the action  in question  the appellants filed a  writ petition The High Court has dismissed the said writ petition. Thus this appeal by special leave.      The controversy  is longer  res integra.  It is settled legal position  that once  notification under subsection (3) of section  68-D of the Act is published in the Gazette, all the pre-existing  operators shall  cease to  operate on  the frozen routes  except  in  accordance  with  the  terms  and conditions mentioned  in the  scheme itself  which is law by itself. If  the state  Road Transport  corporation fails  to obtain permit  power has  been granted  to STA/RTA  to grant temporary permit until the S.R.T.C. Obtains regular permits. In  this   case,  admittedly   the  state   Road   Transport Corporation had  the permits  Obtained and  that  therefore, under the  notified scheme  no one  except  the  state  Road Transport  Corporation   shall  exclusively  ply  the  stage carriages on  the notified  route in  terms  of  the  scheme itself. The  self employment  scheme therefore, is obviously illegal, This  court in  the Case of Brij Mohan Parihar etc. V. M.P.  State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. etc.(1987)1 SCC  13)  Considered  this  aspect  of  the  matter  and  in paragraph 3 Of the  judgment it  was help  that it  is  not  ,  however, permissible under  the Act  for the  Corporation to obtain a permissible under  the Act  for the  Corporation to obtain a

2

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

permit under  Chapter IV-A  of Act  and to  allow a  Private operator as  its nominee  to operate  under that  permit his motor Vehicle  as a stage Carriage on the notified route. It cannot be  granted permission to collect any money either as nomination fees  or as  royalty or supervision charges. Thus it would  be seen  that  in  a  notified  route  no  private operator is entitled to ply the stage carriage. Accordingly, We hold  that dismissal  of the  appellants writ petition by the High  Court is  not vitiated  by  error  law  Warranting interferance.      The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No Costs.