SUMER CHAND SHARMA & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P AND ANR. ETC.ETC.

Citation: [1986] 2 S.C.R. 766 · Decided: 24-04-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
766 
SlllER CHAND SllABMA & ANR. 
v. 
STAlE OF U.P. & AlL ETC. ETC~ 
APRIL 24, 1986, 
[O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ,] 
Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehi'cles Special Provisions Act, 
(Act XXVII of 1976), 1976, sections 1(3) and (5), scope of -
Operation of stage carriages by private operators over co111110n 
sectors of nationalised routes, provided they did not set down 
or pick up passengers at any point on the co111110n sectors 
despite total ban after the nationalisation of bus routes in 
1950 by virtue of section lO(l)(c) of U,P, Act IX of 1955 and 
even after statutory prohibition with effect from 1.4.1971 by 
section 76 of Central Act 56 of 1969, by "practice", - Whether 
such 
operators 
are 
entitled 
for 
renewal 
of 
their 
authorisations under sections 1(3) and (5) of U.P. Act, 27 of 
1976 - Motor Vehicles 1939, section 135(2) and Uttar Pradesh 
Road Transport Services (Development) Act, 1955. 
After the nationalisation of bus routes in the Fifties, 
it was not permissible to permit any private operator to ply a 
stage carriage on any sector of the nationalised routes as the 
schemes of nationalisation did not provide for it. However, by 
virtue of section 10(1) (c) of Uttar Pradesh Road Transport 
Services (Development) Act, (Act IX of 1955), 1955 private 
operators were allowed to ply the stage carriages on the whole 
of their routes including the COllllOn sectors. U.P. Act (IX of 
1955) was repealed by Central Act LXVI of 1969. By virtue of 
section 76 inserted as section 135 of Motor Vehicles Act, the 
pe::iaission granted to them being inconsistent with the 
provisions of the KV Act ceased to be effective from 1.4.71, 
the date of repeal of the 1955 Act. Despite this statutory 
prohibition, in the State of Uttar Pradesh, a "Practice", grew 
whereby private operators were continued to be pemitted to 
ply their stage carriages over cOllllOn sectors of nationalised 
routes provided that they did not set down or pick up 
passengers at any point on the commn sectors. In 1976 the 
Uttar Pradesh Legislature enacted the Uttar Pradesh Motor 
Vehicles Special Provisions Act, 1976 to provide for the grant 
+
SUMER CHAND SHARMA v. STATE 
767 
of authorisation to holders of stage carriage permits to ply 
·-.I, their 
stage 
carriages 
over 
co111110n 
sectors. 
When 
the 
applications moved by such private operators for renewal of 
their authorisation, were rejected on the ground that they did 
not possess permits on the dates of the natonalisation 
notifications, some of them moved the High Court of Allabahad 
under Article 226 and after the dismissal of their writ 
petitions have come up by way of special leave, while some 
others have filed their petitions directly under Article 32 of 
~~ the Constitution. 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
llKLD: 1. Where a route is nationalised Chapter IV-A of 
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to the total exclusion of private 
operators, a private operator with a permit to ply a stage 
--+ carriage over another route which has a co111110n overlapping 
sector with the nationalised route cannot be permitted to ply 
his vehicle over that part of the overlapping co111110n sector, 
even if he did not pick up or set down passengers on that part 
of the route. While permissions granted under section lO(l)(c) 
of Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Services (Development) Act, 
Act IX of 1955 were patently inconsistent with the provisions 
of Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and therefore, 
,1 ceased to be effective from 1.4.1971, the date of the repeal 
of 1955 Act, the "Practice" of permitting private operators to 
ply their stage carriages over co111110n sectors of nationalised 
routes, subject to conditions was wholly unauthorised and 
without ·any legal sanctions whatsoever. Hence, the plying of 
4 stage carriages by the private operators before the co11111ence-
ment of 1976 Act pursuant to such unauthorised and unlawful 
'!practice" which had grown up in Uttar Pradesh, or under 
interim orders of a Court will disentile them to obtain. 
Authorisation under section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor 
Vehicles Special Provisions Act, 
1976 (Act 27 of 1976). 
[770 A-DJ 
Adanih Travels v. State of Dttar Pradesh, [ 1985] 2 Scale 
880 followed. 
f 
Hindustan Transport Collpany v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 
A.I.R. [1984] s.c. 953 referred to. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 255 of 
H 
1986 etc. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 

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