MITHILESH RANI AND ORS. versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, DEHRADUN AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 2 S.C.R. 316 · Decided: 04-03-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
A 
MITHILESH RANI AND ORS. 
' 
v. 
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, DEHRADUN AND ORS. 
MARCH 4, 1994 
B 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.) 
Motor Vehicles Act, 198/f-Grant of stage permits-Applications pend-
ing-Order of stay granted by Supreme Court in another matter prohibiting 
issue of fresh permit~ether stay order did in any way preclude grant of 
c permits to appellants on route applied for-Held : no. 
The appellants applied to the Regional Transport Authority, for 
grant of stage carriage permits on the route Muzalfarnagar to Yamuna 
Bridge. While the said applications were pending, some other persons 
D 
challenged· the contitutionality of ceratln provisions of the Motor Vehicles 
Act, 1988 by way of writ petitions. The Supreme Court passed an interim 
• 
order prohibiting issue. of permits on various routes concerned in the writ 
; 
petitions. The Regional Transport Authority sanctioned the grant of per· 
mits to the appellants on the route applied for. Subsequently, the writ 
petitions pending were dismissed by the Supreme Court. 
E 
The grant of permits in favour of appellants was challenged in the 
Allahabad High Court. An interim order was passed by the High Court 
observing that the Regional Authority while issuing permits did not show 
due respect to the orders of the Supreme Court. The Authority cancelled 
the permits granted to the appellants. Writ Petition filed against the order 
... 
F 
cancelling permits bas been dismissed by the Division Bench. This appeal 
, 
is directed against the said order, contending that the grant of permit to 
the appellants on the said route was in no way affected by the stay order 
and that route concerned In the Writ Petitions before the Supreme Court 
only partly overlapped the route on which the appellants were granted 
G permits. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: l.l. The order of stay granted by this court did not preclude 
r, 
the grant of pe.rmits on the said route, on which the appelU.nts were 
H granted permits. The said route was not the subject matter of any of the 
316 
\ 
) 
MITHILESH v. TPT.AUTHORITY [JEEVANREDDY,J.) 
317 
writ petitions filed in this Court. The attempt to bring in this route within A 
the purview of the said stay order with reference to the expression "allied 
routes" occurring in the Writ P~itlon is a vain one. The expression "allied 
routes" referred to the extensions of the route concerned therein. The said 
expression cannot take in the route concerned herein. Io such a situation, 
there could not have been any objection to the grant of permits to the 
B 
appellants to the said route. [321-E·F; 322-B] 
1,2, Regarding the submission that in as much as a portion of the 
said route is overlapped by a notified route, no permits could have granted 
on the _said route, this court declines to go into the said question, in view 
of the facts and circumstances of the case. [323-AB] 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1541 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.93 of the Allahabad High 
). 
Court in C. Misc. W.P. No. 4488 of 1992. 
D 
• 
> ., 
P. Chidambaram, H.P. Dubey and Salish Vig for the Appellants. 
G.L. Saoghi, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Gaurav Jain and Ms. Abba Jain for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B,P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted. Heard counsel for the 
parties . 
E 
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High F 
Court dated December 16, 1993 dismissing C.W.P.No. 4488 of 1992. The 
matter arises under the Motor Vehicles Act. 
The appellants applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Deh-
radun for grant of sta1Je carriage permits on the route Muzaffarnagar to 
Yamuna Bridge via Rampur Deoband-Sidki-Tapri-Saharanpur and Sar- G 
sawa (hereinafter referred to as the "said route"). While the said applica· 
tions were pending before the Regional Transport Authority, some other 
persons challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1988 by w;,y of writ petitions under Article 32 of the Con-
stitution of India in this court. Writ Petition (C) No.869 of 1990 was one H 
318 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994/ 2 S.C.R. 
A of them. The petitioner in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 869 of 1990 was plying 
on the route Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Khandola-Issopurteel. On February 
2, 1991, this court passed a common order in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 1110 
of 1989, 869 of 1990, 740 of 1990 and 1100 of 1990 to the following effect: 
B 
c 
D

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