MOHD. SHAFIQ KHAN & ORS. ETC., versus COMPETENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 95 · Decided: 27-11-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MOHD. SHAFIQ KHAN & ORS. ETC., 
v. 
COMPETENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 27, 1987 
A 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Grant of authorisation certificate under U.P: Motor Vehicles 
(Special Provision) Act, 1976 for plying stage carriage vehicles on 
notified routes. 
The petitioners, holders of permanent stage carriage permits for 
C 
non-notified routes, filed applications under the U.P. Motor Vehicles 
(Special Provision) Act, 1976 for the grant of authorisation certificate 
for plying their stage carriage vehicles on Unnao-Kanpur and 
Lucknow/Barahanki notified routes. The applications were rejected. 
The petitioners moved the High Court for relief hy Writ Petitions. The 
High Court dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved, the petitioners D 
• 
moved this Court by petitions for special leave. 
) 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court, 
HELD: The schemes notifying Unnao-Kanpur and Lucknow-
Barabanki routes do not provides for and permit any private operator E 
to ply stage carriage vehicles on those routes. The Regional Transport 
Authority has no power to grant any stage carriage permit in respect 
of a notified route. No private operator is entitled to ply stage carriage 
vehicles on a notified route or a portion thereof unless authorised to 
do so by the terms of the scheme itself. If a private operator had no 
permit in respect of the notified route or a portion thereof on the date F 
of enforcement of the scheme. When the route is nationalised, he is not 
entitled to any authorization certificate. Also, the petitioners are not 
entitled to reply, for the purposes of grant of authorisation certificates 
under section 5 of the 1976 Act, on the stay orders issued by the High 
Court pending the writ petition filed by them, under which they had 
been plying their vehicles on the notified routes. All those Stay Orders G 
stood discharged on the dismissal of the writ petitions. [97 A; C; G I 
Adarsh Travels Bus Service and Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 
[1985] 4 SCC 557, Hindustan Transport Co. and Anr. v. State of U.P. 
& Ors., [1984] Sopp. SCC 22; and Sumer Chand Sharma and Anr. v. 
State of U.P. andAnr., (1985] 3 SCC 263, referred to. 
H 
95 
96 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1988] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition 
(Civil) Nos. 8865-66 of 1987. etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.1987 of the Allahabad 
High Court in W.P. No. 2418/82 and WP'No. 3293 of 1980. 
8 
V .J. Francis for the Petitioners. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
C 
The petitioners held permanent stage carriage permits for non-
notified routes. They made applications to the competent authority 
under the U .P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provision) Act, 1976 for 
grant of authorisation certificate permitting· them to ply their stage 
carriage vehicles on Unnao-Kanpur and Lucknow-Barabanki notified 
routes. The competent authority rejected their applications, there-
0 upon they filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution 
challenging the validity of the order of the competent authority. A 
Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) 
dismissed the writ petitions by its order dated 2.4.1987 on the ground 
that the petitioners were not entitled to any authorisation certificate 
under the U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provision) Act 1976 as none 
E of them held permits for plying their vehicles on the aforesaid 
notified routes on the date the routes were notified. Aggrieved, the 
petitioners have filed these special leave petitions against the order of 
the High Court. 
After hearing learned counsel for the pet1t1oners we are of 
f' opinion that there is no merit in these petitions. There is no dispute 
that Unnao-Kanpur and Lucknow-Barabanki are notified routes and 
the relevant schemes do not permit any private operator to ply stage 
carriage vehicles on those routes or any portion thereof. The 
Regional Transport Authority has no power to grant any stage 
carriage permit in respect of a notified route or any part thereof. No 
O private operator is entitled to ply stage carriage vehicles on a notified 
route of a portion thereof unless authorised to do so by the terms of 
the schem~ itself. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Adarash 
Travels Bus Service & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1985] 4 SCC 557 
made this position clear. The Court held that no operator is entitled 
to ply on any portion of a notified route even it the operator does not 
H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.