LexU.P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. versus MOHD. GHILMAN SHARIF & OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. [2009) 10 S.C.R. 1149 U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. A V. MOHD. GHILMAN SHARIF & OTHERS. (Civil Appeal No. 4555 of 2009) JULY 20, 2009 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] B Motor Vehicles Act, 1939/Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 68-C!ss. 100(3) and 105 - Scheme of nationalization by State Transport Department - Exclusive right of operation to State C Road Transport Corporation on notified routes and total exclusion of private operators by canceling their permits - Publication of Notification - Challenge to, by private operators - Dismissal of writ petition, however, special leave petition allowed - On remittance, hearing authority holding that D existing operators to ply on route along with Corporation - Writ petition by Corporation - Meanwhile, renewal of permits of private operators by State Transport Appellate Tribunal but subject to decision in writ petition - Disposal of writ petition . in favour of Corporation, holding that private operators who E were granted permit before publication of Scheme entitled to compensation - On appeal, held: Private operators not to be . given further hearing regarding their claim to operate on notified routes On-basis of permits - Private operators to claim compensation uls. 105 of the 1988 Act. F Ramakrishna Verma vs. State of U.P. 1992 (2) SCC 620; A.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Regional Transport Authority and Anr. 2005,(4) SCC 391, referred to; Case Law Reference: 1992 (2) sec s20 2005 (4) sec 391 Referred to. Referred to. 1149 Para 4 Para 14 G H 1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 10 S.C.R. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4555 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 14.11.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. B 479.t19 of 2008. WITH C.A. No. 4556, 4557 of 2009. C Dushyant A. Dave, Shobha Dixit, Ranjit Kumar, Garima Prashad, Neha Goyal, Suchita Sharma, R.K. Gupta, Rajiv Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, Rani Chhabra, Lalita Choudhary, Simran, Suresh Chadha, Madhuri Gupta for the appearing parties. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the Allahabad High Court E in Civil Misc. W.P. No.47949 of 2008 filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, inter alia, for the issuance of a Writ in the nature Mandamus upon the Transport Department of the State of U.P. and its authorities to allow the writ petitioners/ Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, to ply their vehicles against F subsisting permits on the route between Muzaffarnagar- Rohana-Deoband-Nagal-Saharanpur and allied routes. By the said order, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the State Transport Authority to decide as to whether the permit of the Respondent No.1 was subsisting and G if the same was found to be subsisting the respondents would not be prevented from plying their vehicles on the route in question. The matter was to be decided by a speaking order. 3. The facts in brief indicate that the Respondent No.1 H Mohd. Gilman Sharif and Mohd. Ruman Sharif, claimed to be - •. U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. v. MOHD.1151 GHILMAN SHARIF & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.) joint permit holders in respect of the aforesaid route. The A second petitioner, Vined Kumar, claims to have had a permit in respect of the said route which had expired and his application for renewal of the same is said to be pending. 4. On 13.2.1986 a Scheme was proposed to notify 38 8 routes under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1939 Act'), which would have the effect of totally excluding all private operators from the said routes. While Clause (h) of Section 68-C provides for cancellation of permits granted to private operators upon such Notification, Clause 0) provides for grant of compensation if no C alternative route could be given to the permit holders. Various objections were filed by the existing operators to the said proposal and in the mean time on 1.7.1989 the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1988 Act') came into force and the proposed Scheme continued for consideration D under the provisions of the 1988 Act. The objections Vfere considered by the Hearing Authority which held that the Scheme had lapsed under Section 100(4) of the 1988 Act. The order of the He
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.