SMT. AFSAR JAHAN BEGUM ETC. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 387 · Decided: 11-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. AFSAR JAHAN BEGUM ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC. 
JANUARY 11, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 : 
S.102(2}--Approved scheme~od(fication of-Relaxation only to a 
distance of 25 Kms. on nationalised routes to private operators under certain 
C 
conditions and restrictions--Operator on any route intersecting the notified 
area to ply the vehicle strictly in conformity with the restrictive corridor 
shelte~elaxation meant to subserve the public interest and not to sabotage 
the approved scheme. 
Adarsh Travels Bus Service v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1985] 4 SCC 557, 
D 
relied on. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 8475 of 
1981 Etc. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
S.K. Gambir, A.K. Pandey, R.P. Singh, H.K. Puri, B.S. Banthia S.K. 
Agnihotri, A.K. Singhi (N.P.), T.C. Shanna (NP), Rajinder Narain & Co., for 
the appearing parties. 
The Order of the Court was delivered : 
Substitution allowed in W.P. (C) No. 8330/81. 
All these writ petitions and appeal are disposed of by common judgment 
since common question of law arises for decision is these cases. 
Admitted, the routes of which the petitioners/appellants are seeking to 
intersect and ply their vehicles are notified routes. The notified routes were 
published and became final under Chapter IV-A of Act 4, 1939. The Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1988 introduced Chapter VJ as a special provision relating to the 
E 
F 
G 
State transport undertakings. Section 99 authorises preparation and publica-
H 
387 
388 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] l S.C.R. 
"' 
A 
tion of the proposal regarding road transport service of a State transport 
undertaking. , Section 102 deals with cancellation or modification of the 
schemes. It provides that the State Government may, at any time, if it consider 
necessary in the public interest so to do, modify any approved scheme after 
giving : (i) the state transportundertaking; and (ii) any other person who in 
B 
the opinion of the State Government is likely to be affected by the proposed 
modification an opportunity of being heard in respect of the. proposed 
modification. 
Under sub-section (2), the State Government shall publish the modi-
fication proposed under sub-section ( 1) in the State Gazette and in one of 
C 
the newspapers in the regional languages circulating in the area in which it 
is proposed to be covered by such modification together with the date not 
being less than 30 days from the publication in the official gazette, the time 
and place at which any representation received in this behalf will be heard 
by the State Government. 
D 
E 
While the appeals are pending, when it was brought to our notice that 
a proposal has been made by the State Government for modification of the 
approved schemes, by our order dated 1.11.1995, we have ordered that the 
learned counsel appearing for the State should verify and place before the 
Court whether the draft modification has been approved and published as 
required under Section 102(2) of the Act and also to file an affidavit by a 
competent and responsible officer of the necessity to introduce the modifica-
tion of the approved schemes and the action taken thereon. Pursuant thereto, 
the additional affidavit has been filed by K.K. Tiwari, R.T.O., Indore who has 
stated that the Government by notification dated 21.2.1991 relaxed only to a 
F 
distance of 25 kms. on the nationalised route to private operators under certain 
conditions and restrictions. The appellants are not entitled to the benefit of 
those corridor shelters now given under the modified scheme and relaxation 
granted under Section 102(2) of the Act. The petitioners, therefore, cannot 
claim the benefit of relaxation. They have stated in the notification thus : 
G 
H 
"'And, Whereas, the State Government in view of additional demand 
of transport services considers necessary in the public interest to allow 
private operators to ply on hire or reward stage carriages on routes 
covered by the said Schemes and for that purpose desires to modify 
all the said Schemes in the manner as shown in the Scheduled below: 
-I 
, 
_, 
I 
-' 
A.J. BEGUM (SMT.) v. STATE 
389 
SCHEDULE 
In each of the said schemes, the following words figures and 
brackets shall be added at the end, namely : 
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Scheme, the private 
operators may be pennitted to ply stage-Carriages for hire or reward 
subject to the followi

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