SUBHASH CHANDER AND ANR. versus STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 685 · Decided: 21-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SUBHASH CHANDER AND ANR. 
V. 
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS. 
MARCH 21, 2002 
[M.B. SHA!i, BJSHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH AND D.M. 
DHARMADHIKARJ, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 80 ond Clauses 7 and 7-A of the 
Scheme framed under Section 99. 
A 
B 
c 
Permit-Operators of mini bus-Grant of-Under liberalised Scheme 
framed under Section 80-State Transport Undertaking reserving certain 
routes-Validity of-Held, Main purpose of the Scheme is to provide an 
efficient, adequate, eConomica/ and properly co-ordinated road transport 
service in pub!ic interest-There should not be reservation of some routes on D 
mere assumption that State Transport Undertaking would operate upon such 
routes in future-Dominant purpose should be public interest to encourage 
competition. 
Clauses 7 and 7-A of the Scheme formulated under Section 99-
Applicability of-Discussed. 
E 
Appellants applied for grant of mini-bus permits at specified route under 
the liberalised scheme introduced under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 
State Transport Commissioner_ rejected the application. Appellants preferred 
appeals. Appellate Authority allowed the appeals and remitted the case to 
State Transport Commissioner to conduct survey and decide the case on merit. 
Transport Commissioner again rejected the application. Appeals before the 
Appellate Authority were allowed. 
Respondents preferred Writ Petitions. High Court allowed and set aside 
the order passed by the appellate authority and remitted the matter to 
appellate authority for consideration afresh. In the meanwhile other aggrieved 
persons preferred appeals before this Court. The Court allowed those appeals 
vide its Judgment in Jagdip Singh etc. v. Jagir Chand and Anr. etc., [2001] 8 
sec 437. 
Subsequently, appellants also preferred appeals before this Court. It was 
685 
686 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A contended that in view of Jagdip Singh 's case these appeals may be allowed. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The State Government is required to formulate a proposal 
regarding the Scheme giving particulars of - (a) nature of services proposed 
B 
to be rendered; and (b) the area or route proposed to be covered alongwith 
other relevant particulars respecting thereof. The dominant purpose should 
be public interest and not to have permit raj through back door, otherwise 
the whole purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act 
would be frustrated. (690-E-F] 
C 
1.2. Clause 7-A nowhere provides that State Transport Undertaking was 
to operate on a particular route. The State Government is empowered to 
frame the scheme only in cases where the State Transport Undertaking is to 
operate particular class of service in relation to any area or a route or a 
portion thereof. But if the Transport Undertaking is not _to operate the said 
D routes, then there is no question of framing any scheme. Therefore, reading 
clauses 7 and 7-A together also, it would not mean that ther~ \fas any 
/ 
contemplation by the State Transport Undertaking for operating on the routes 
linking one village with another village or a town or a municipality in between 
the aforesaid two villages or a route linking a village with block head quarter 
or a municipality or city. Hence, as stated in Jagdip Singh 's case, clause 7(a) 
E nowhere reveals that it is in conformity with Section 99 of the Act 
(690-C-D-F-G] 
Jagdip Singh etc. v. Jagir Chand and Anr. etc., (2001] 8 SCC 437, relied 
on. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE ruRISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2326-2328 
G 
of 2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.3.2000 of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 14509, 16579, 16642 of 1999. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 2329-2330 and 233 l of 2002. 
Parag P. Tripathi, Ms. Sudha Paul, Rani Chhabra, Ms. Anusuya Salwan, 
Ms. Priya Kumar for Ms. S. Janani, R.K. Kapoor, Anis Ahmed Khan, Rohit 
H Kapoor, Rajesh K. Sharma for Goodwill lndeevar, K.G. Bhagat for Debasis 
T 
' 
•
SUBHASH CHANDER v. ST ATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [SHAH, .I] 687 
Misra, Ranbir Yadav and Rajeev Sharma for the appearing parties. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHAH, J. Leave granted. 
These cases reveal how the persons who got benefit of permit raj are 
trying to avoid competition despite the liberalised policy introduced by the B 
Parliament under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. in our view, 
the question involved is concluded by the decision rendered by this Court in 
Jag

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