BRIJ MOHAN PARIHAR versus M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 369 · Decided: 25-11-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
BRIJ MOHAN' PARIHAR 
A 
v. 
Y 
M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. 
·~ .. 
A 
NOVEMBER 25, 1986 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: ss. 68-C, 68-D, 68-F, 68-FF, 42 and 59: State 
Road Transport Corporation-.J~ermit issued to-Private operator whether 
entitled to ply his motor vehicle as nominee of Corporation. 
B 
Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950: s./9(2)(h}--State Road C 
Transport Corpoiation not authorised to allow private operator to run his 
vehicle on a permit issued to the Corporation. 
Section 68-FF of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 prohibits grant of permit 
in respect of notified area or notified route by State Transport Authority or the 
Regional Transport Authority except in accordance with the scheme published D 
under sub-s. (3) ofs. 68-D but provides for grant of temporary permits in cases 
where no application for a permit has been made by the State Transport 
Undertaking in respect of such notified area or route. Section 59 bars transfer of 
permits from one person to another except with the permission of the 
concerned Transport Authority. Section 42 prohibits the owners of transport 
vehicles from plying them in public places except in accordance with the E 
conditions of the permit. 
Under an agreement entered into with the respondent Corporation the 
petitioner was permitted to ply his bus on a specified route as a nominee of the 
former for a period of live years ending on December 23, 1982. Thereafter the 
respondent was issued temporary permits and the petitioner was permitted by it F 
to ply his motor vehicle on monthly basis. The route in question had by then 
been brought within a scheme published under. s. 68-C of the Act. 
The respondent through an advertisement dated August 12, 1984 invited 
tenders from, private operators for the grant of privilege of running buses as 
stage carriages as its nominees. Aggrieved by the said advertisement the G 
petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court assailing the decision to invite 
tenders as arbitrary and illegal, and for a writ in the nature of mandamus 
directing the respondent Corporation to allow him to ply his motor vehicle as 
its nominee for a further period of live years. Under an interim order of the 
Court he continued to ply his bus as a stage carriage till· May 31, 1985. 
Subsequently, the High Court dismissed the petition since the scheme H 
369 
' 
370· 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] l S.C.R. 
A published under s. 68-C of the Act had been approved and brought into effect 
from June I, 1985. 
Dismissing the petition for special leave, the Court, 
HELD: I.I It is not permissible under the Motor Vehicles Actfor a State 
B Transport Undertaking to obtain a permit under Chapter IV-A and to allow a 
private operator as its nominee to opera!< under that permit his motor vehicle 
as a stage carriage on the notified route. It cannot by granting such permission 
collect any money either as nomination .fees or as royalty or supervision 
charges. Section 42 and 59 of the Act which equally apply to permits issued 
under Chapter IV-A, debar all holders of permits, including the State 
C Transport Undertakings from indulging in such unauthorised trafficking in 
permits. [373E, 374A, DJ 
1.2 The petitioner was not, therefore, entitled to the issue of a writ in the 
nature of mandamus to the respondent Corporation to allow him to operate his 
motor vehicle as a stage carriage under the permit obtained by the latter, as its 
D nominee. The agreement entered into by 1 he petitioner with the respondent was 
clearly contrary to the Act and could not be enforced. The advertisement issued 
by the respondent was equally ineffective. [374E] 
2. If the respondent Corporation ':annot run its vehicle under a permit 
issued to it,_ it must surrender it so that the Regional Transport Authority may 
E 
grant the permit to some other deserving applicant or it must transfer it to 
somebody else with the permission of the Regiopal Transport Authority 
granted under s.59 of the Act. It cannot :1llow the permit to be used by others 
either for consideration or without consideration. If it does so it would be 
exercisinr the power of the Regional Transport Authority. The Corporation 
cannot ,dus indirectly dutch at the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport 
F 
Authority. [374F] 
, 
3.1 Even though the Corporation was established by the State 
Government under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 and the State 
Go

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