ABDUL HAI KHAN versus SUBAL CHANDRA GHOSE AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 1157 · Decided: 12-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

ABDUL HAI KHAN 
A 
v. 
SUBAL CHANDRA GHOSE AND ORS. 
APRIL 12, 2002 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Section 68 C--Stage Carriage Permit-Grant 
of-Issuance of notification-Scheme nationalizing certain rules and permitting 
existing private operators to continue their services on routes specified in C 
· permits~Modification of scheme-Appellants issued permits on route-
However, transport authority granting permits to private operators on routes 
overlapping nationalized route on which appellants operating-Appellants 
filing writ petition to forbear authority from granting permit to any other 
private operators on route overlapping notified route-single Judge of High 
Court dismissing the petition-Division Bench disposing of the appeals-On D 
appeal held scheme being partial exclusion scheme, appellants are not entitled 
to seek writ of mandamus transport authority not to grant permit to any other 
private operator. 
By a notification issued in 1963 State published a scheme nationalizing 
certain routes where provision was made to permit the existing private E 
operators to continue their services on the routes specified in the permits. 
Subsequently the 1963 Scheme was modified. Appellants were issued stage 
carriage permits on the routes included in the notification and have been 
operating on the nationali7.ed routes. However, Regional Transport Authority 
granted permits to private operators on routes overlapping the nationali7.ed F 
routes on which appellants are operating under the modified scheme ignoring 
the notification issued in 1963 as modified in 1980. Aggrieved, appellants filed 
a petition contending that they have a right to operate on the nationali7.ed 
routes on which they have been granted permits on the exclusion of any other 
private operator on the entire route or on a portion of it. Single Judge of High 
Court dismissed the petition. Division Bench disposed of the appeals. Hence G 
the present appeals. 
. 
Appellants contended that the Notification issued under the Motor 
._Vehicles Act, 1939 has not been cancelled after the said Act was repealed by 
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is llinding on all parties, the private 
I 157 
H 
1158 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002) 2 S.C.R. 
A operators, the State Undertaking and the Transport Authorities under the 
Act. The authorities are not entitled to ignore the modified scheme or render 
it otiose by indiscriminately granting permits to private operators on routes 
overlapping the nationalized routes. 
Respondents contended that 1963 Scheme is not a total exclusion scheme 
B but only a partial exclusion scheme. There is no legal bar for the Regional 
Transport Authority to issue permits to private operators on routes other than 
the nationalized routes even if such routes overlap portions of any nationalized 
route. 
C 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 .. The Scheme framed in 1963 does not totally exclude private 
operators. It permits ope.ration of stage carriage service by private operators. 
Therefore, the scheme is only a partial exclusion scheme. In such a case it is 
not open to a private ~perator who is himself operating on a nationalized route 
D on account of modification of the scheme to seek a writ of madamus to the 
authority not to grant permit to any other private operator on that route or 
a route overlapping a portion of the route. He is not entitled to enjoy a 
monopoly of operation of the route. It is up to the authority to consider 
whether the application filed by a private operator for permit on that route 
E or another route overlapping that route should be issued or not [1163-B-C] 
1.2. In case the private operator who is operating on the nationalized 
route has a grievance that the number of private operators specified in the 
notified scheme is being exceeded then the permit issued to the operator/ 
operators in excess of the specified limit, may be challenged before the 
F statutory fora in accordance with provisions of the Act In the instant case 
neither the private operators who are alleged to have got the permits in excess 
of the number specified in the Notification nor the State Undertakings have 
been impleaded as parties in the case, thus the Single Judge was right in 
dismissing the writ petition and the Division Bench was in error in interfering 
G with the judgment. [1163-D-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2676 of 
2002. 
From the Judgment and Orde

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.