PUNJAB ROADWAYS MOGA THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER versus PUNJA SAHIB BUS AND TRANSPORT CO. AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 5 S.C.R. 256 · Decided: 27-04-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 5 S.C.R. 256 
PUNJAB ROADWAYS MOGA THROUGH ITS GENERAL 
MANAGER 
v. 
PUNJA SAHIB BUS AND TRANSPORT CO. AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3879 of 2010) 
APRIL 27, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: ss.98, 99, 100, 102, 104 and 
C proviso to s.104 - Scheme published on 9th August 1990 as 
amended - Stage carriage permit - Scheme providing for a 
ratio with regard to grant of permits ofl notified routes between 
the STUs and private operators - Power to cancel/modify the 
scheme or change the ratio fixed - Held: Such power rests 
D with the State Government and is not conferred on the RTA 
- No private operator has right to clafm regular permit to 
operate his service on any part of notified area/route upsetting 
• the ratio prescribed in the scheme except on a temporary 
permit granted under the proviso to s. 104 of the Act - Chapter 
E V and VI - Constitution of India, 1950 - Road transport. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226 - Scope of - High 
Court in exercise of power under Article 226 granting regular 
permits to private operators upsetting the ratio fixed in the 
F scheme framed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- Justification 
of - Held: Not justified - Grant of stage carriage permit is 
primarily a statutory function to be discharged by RTA 
exercising power under s. 72 of 1988 Act and not by High 
Court exercising constitutional powers under Articles 226, 227 
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 
G 
In terms of the Scheme published on 9th August, 
1990 modified by the Punjab Government on 21.10.19~7, 
the routes on the National as well as the State Highways 
were shared by the STUs and the private operators in a 
H 
256 
PUNJAB ROADWAYS MOGA THR. ITS GENERAL MANAGER v. 
257 
PUNJA SAHIB BUS AND TRANS. CO. 
specified ratio. The question which arose for A 
consideration in the appeals was whether High Court in 
exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of 
India was justified in directing the Commissioner 
exercising the powers of RTAs, to grant regular permits 
to the private operators on the ground that the STUs had 
B 
either failed to utilize the permits granted or surrendered 
the permits or had not applied for the permits in the 
notified routes. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1.1. There was complete misreading of the 
provisions of Scheme published on 9th August, 1990 as 
amended and provisions of Chapter VI of the Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1988. Provisions of this Chapter confer a 
monopoly on the State in respect of transport service to 
D 
the partial or complete exclusion of other persons. The 
scheme once published is law and chapter VI has an 
overriding effect on Chapter V of the Act and it operates 
against everyone unless it is modified or cancelled by the 
State Government. The scheme provides for a ratio with 
regard to the grant of permits on the notified routes 
between STUs and private operators which is fixed 
based on the assessment made by the State Transport . 
Commissioner, Punjab on the basis of the passenger 
road transport needs which is legally binding on all. The 
provisions of the scheme including the list of routes 
mentioned in the various annexures, and the ratio fixed 
E 
F 
are statutory in character which cannot be tinkered with 
by the RTAs and have overriding effect over the powers 
of RTAs under Chapter V of the Act. The power to caned! 
G 
the Scheme or modify the Scheme rests with the State 
Government under Section 102 of the Act. The RT A and 
the Tribunal committed a grave error in tampering with 
the Scheme as well as disturbing the ratio fixed by the 
Scheme by granting regular permits to the private sector 
H 
258 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010) 5 S.C.R. 
A from the quota earmarked for STUs. Once a scheme is 
approved and published, private operators have no right 
to claim regular permit$ to operate their vehicles in the 
notified area, route or portion thereof upsetting the ratio 
fixed. [Paras 21, 22] [269-F; 270~C-G] 
B 
1.2. A combined reading of Sections 99, 100 and 104 
in the light of Section 2(38) of the Act, makes it'-clear that 
once a scheme is published under Section 100 in relation 
to any area or route or portion thereof, whether in 
complete or partial exclusion of other persons, no 
C persons other than STUs may operate on the notified 
area or route except as provided in the scheme itself. 
Section 104 of the Act states that where a scheme has 
been published under Sub-section 3 o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.