JAGDIP SINGH versus JAGIR CHAND AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 16 · Decided: 10-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
JAGDIP SINGH 
v. 
JAGIR CHAND AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 10, 2001 
, [M.B. SHAH AND R.I\ SETHI, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act 1988 : 
Sections 80(2) and 99:.__Pennit to operate mini bu~es on certain routes-
Allowed by the tribunal-Challenged by pe1mit holders already running mini 
buses-High Court set aside the order-On appeal, held when scheme does 
not provide that the routes are to be covered and operated completely or 
partially by state transport undertaking, Tribunal was correct in :granting the 
pennits. 
... 
D 
Sta~e Transport, Appellate Tribunal allowed the . grant. of permit to 
E 
F 
G 
H 
the appellants to· operate mini buses. on certain routes. On challenge by 
existing permit holders running mini buses High Court set aside the order 
passed by the tribunal. Hence the present appeals. 
Aliowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Tliere can be certain restrictiOn on the bus operators for 
providing facilities to the passengers, but when Legislature provides that 
permits should not, ordinarily, be refused and has brought about a 
complete change in the policy of granting permit, it would be unreasonable 
and unjust on the part of the State Authorities to continue their old 
practice. Further, in these days of liberalisation in all fields, that too when 
people are talking of globalization, it would be unjust to put fetter on the 
exercise of fundamental rights of those persons who intend to carry oil 
business as transport operators. (17-F; G; H] 
2. Under Section 80(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a Regional 
Transport Authority shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for 
permit of any kind made at any time under the Act. Therefore, in view 
of the scheme framed by the state government the transport authority was 
not justified in rejecting the application for grant of permit to minibus 
operators on a particular route as the Scheme does not provide that the 
routes are to be covered and operated completely or partially by the State 
16 
·~' 
I 
" 
1' __
·' 
I 
JAGDIP SINGH v. JAGIR CHAND [SHAH, J.] 
17 
fransport Undertaking. In such cases, Section 80(2) of the Act would be 
A 
applicable, as under Section 99 of the Act, the State Government is not 
empowered to provide that only few private operators would operate on 
a particular route/routes. [18-A; 23-G-H; 24-A] 
i 
Hans Raj Kehar v. State of U.P., (1975] 1 SCC 40 and Mithilesh Garg 
• 
) 
· and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1992] 1 SCC 168 referred to. 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7085 of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated l.5.2000 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 8198 of 1999. 
With 
C.A. Nos. 7086, 7087, 7088 of 2001. 
Jana Kalyan Das, Nidhesh Gupta, Naveen Kr. Singh for Ms. S. Jariani, 
c 
Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Ms. Rani Chhabra, Ms. Sudha Pal, Neeraj Kr. Jain for 
D 
Aditya Kr. Chaudhary, Bharat Singh, for Ugra Shankar Pd., Inderbir Singh 
Alag, Rajiv Sharma, R.S. Suri (N.P.), Sudhir Walia for M.S. Dahia, for the 
for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHAH, J. Leave granted. 
Despite the legislative intent under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to 
increase the number of buses on different routes for the convenience and 
benefit of travelling public, there is reluctance on the part of the authorities 
to implement the same. Having reached at a saturation point wherein Permit 
Raj caused lot of inconvenience to the bus operators as well as to the general 
public to a large extent, the same is sought to be continued. There cannot 
be any doubt that there can be certain restrictions on the bus operators for 
providing facilities to the passengers, but when Legislature provides that pennit 
should not, ordinarily, be refused and has brought about a complete change 
in the policy of grauting permit, it would be unreasonable and unjust on the 
part of the State Authorities to continue their old practice. Further, in these 
days of liberalization in all fields, that too when we are talking of globalization, 
il would be unjust to put fetter on the exercise of fundamental rights of those 
persons who intend to carry on the business as transport operators. 
F 
0 
H 
18 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
In these appeals, the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and 
,C 
D 
E 
Haryana iit Chandigarh setting .aside the orders passed ~y the State Transport 
Appellate Tribunal ,granting permits to operate mini buses on certain routes 
to the appellants,

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