AMBALA BUS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD. versus CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 458 · Decided: 26-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Leave Granted & Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
458
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
AMBALA BUS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.
v.
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 10002 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Chapters V & VI; ss. 88 and 98 –
Overriding effect provided u/s.98 – Operation of – Appellant, private
operator of non-air conditioned bus, was issued inter-State permit
by State of Punjab – Appellant claimed counter-signatures on the
said permit from the authority of Union Territory (U.T) of Chandigarh
for operation of non-air conditioned bus in the said U.T. – Allowed
by Single Judge – Division Bench overturned the said view holding
that the appellant cannot operate its stage carriages beyond the
territory of Punjab in view of the 1998 Scheme of the U.T. of
Chandigarh framed under Chapter VI which excludes operation of
private operators altogether – On appeal, held: Division Bench
missed the crucial relevance and effect of the Reciprocal Agreement
of 2008 contemplated u/s.88, Chapter V which specifically provides
for counter signature for non-A.C. buses – There is no dispute that
despite the Scheme of 1998, the appellant operated its stage carriage
up to 2008 – Scheme is unilateral, whereas the Reciprocal
Agreement is bilateral – Despite the availability of Scheme, the U.T
of Chandigarh and the State of Punjab consciously entered into a
Reciprocal Agreement permitting the non-A.C. buses, for which the
State of Punjab had issued permits prior to 1966 and it continued
to be renewed by the State of Punjab to operate in the Union
Territory of Chandigarh – Unless the Reciprocal Agreement is
superseded by a fresh agreement or unless there is a new scheme
framed by the U.T of Chandigarh specifying the provisions to the
contrary, the buses operated by the appellant, which had permits
issued prior to 1.11.1966 and so long as they are renewed by the
State of Punjab, the U.T of Chandigarh cannot refuse counter
signature – Based on s.98, it was contended that Scheme framed
under Chapter VI has overriding effect over the Reciprocal
[2018] 13 S.C.R. 458
458
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
459
Agreement contemplated u/s.88 (Chapter V) – However, overriding
effect provided in s.98 operates only in case of an inconsistency on
a legal position – There is no such situation in the present case –
On the contrary, the Reciprocal Agreement is on mutually beneficial
terms – Impugned order passed by the Division Bench set aside –
Order of Single Judge restored.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1  There is no dispute that despite the Scheme of
1998, as amended in 2001, the appellant operated their stage
carriage up to 2008. [Para 5] [461-G-H]
1.2 The Scheme is unilateral, whereas the reciprocal
agreements are bilateral. Despite the availability of Scheme, the
Union Territory of Chandigarh and the State of Punjab have
consciously entered into a reciprocal agreement permitting the
non-A.C. buses, for which the State of Punjab had issued permits
prior to 1966 and it continued to be renewed by the State of Punjab
to operate in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. It has also come
in the affidavit of the State of Punjab that such mileage has been
taken into consideration for the mileage entitlement of the Union
Territory of Chandigarh, in the reciprocal agreement which has
come into effect on 04.06.2008. Therefore, unless the reciprocal
agreement is superseded by a fresh agreement or unless there
is a new scheme framed by the Union Territory of Chandigarh
specifying the provisions to the contrary, the buses operated by
the appellant, which had permits issued prior to 01.11.1966 and
so long as they are renewed by the State of Punjab, the Union
Territory of Chandigarh cannot refuse counter signature for the
reason that the permits already issued in 1966 had outlived its
life after five years of the reorganization. The overriding effect
provided in Section 98 of the said Act operates only in case of an
inconsistency on a legal position. There is no such situation in
the present case. On the contrary, the reciprocal agreement is
on mutually beneficial terms. Therefore, the impugned order
passed by the Division Bench is set aside and that of the Single
Judge of the High Court is restored. [Paras 8, 9] [460-G-H;
461-A-E]
AMBALA BUS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD. v. CHANDIGARH
ADMINISTRATION
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
460
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal No. 10002
of 2018.
From the Judgm

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