LexU.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN versus OMADITYA VERMA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A U.P. ST ATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. OMADITY A VERMA AND ORS. B APRIL 5, 2005 [ASHOK BHAN AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 104-State Road Transport service C schemes notifying certain routes-Grant of permits to private operators on the notified routes or on portion thereof-Restriction on-Held: No private operator can be permitted to operate on a notified route except by modifing Scheme and after making provisions for the same-On facts, since the route from Bijnor to Noorpur was notified way back in 1951, no permit could have been issued in pursuance f!fthe resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 and likewise D. under notification dated September 3; 1994 when the route from Muzaffarnagar to Bijnor had been notified, no permit could have been granted on the aforesaid route as both schemes are of total exclusion of private operators from notified routes-Motor VehiclesAct, 1939-Section 68-FF. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-SLP dismissed in limine by E Supreme Court-Matter remanded back to Tribunal for fresh disposal-Held: Dismissal of the SLP in lim.ine neither amounts to res judicata nor does it amount to upholding of the law propounded in the decision sought to be appealed against. Under notification dated September 3, 1994 the whole route from F Muzaffarnagar to Bijnore via Jansath, Meerapur-and Dewal stood notified. The route·from Bijnore to Noorpur was already notified by notificatioq dated February 12, 1951. As a result of these two aforesaid schemes, the entire route of Muzaffarnagar Jansath, Meerapur, Dewal to Bijnore stood notified. G H The question which arose for consideration in the present appeals is as to whether the State Transport Authority could not have, by its resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 granted stage carriage permits to private operators for route from Muzaffarpur to Chhaljet via Ganga Bridge, Bijnore and Noorpur as a portion of that route covered the notified route. 166 - - - U.P. STATE ROADTPT. CORPN. v. OMADITYA VERMA 167 Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. When the resolution dated June 14-15, 1993 was passed the route from Muzaffarnagar to Bijnor via Jansath Meerapur & Dewal was not notified but the route from Bijnor to Noorpur was already notified A on February 12, 1951. One fails to understand how could the Regional Transport Authority and State Transport Authority ignore this fact that B tlie portion from Bijnor to Noorpur which falls on the route from Muzaffarnagar to Chajlet was notified, permib we;·t: granted on this notified route. This ignorance appears to be bona fide as nobody seems to have been cognizant of the notification dated February 12, 1951. [177-C-D) C State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle, JT (1996) 3 SC 567 and Narayana Bharma Sanga/ Trust v. Swami Prakashananda and Ors. , JT (1997) 5 SC 100, referred to. 1.2. Although this matter has travelled up to the Apex Court and it D has gone through various litigation but nobody brought to the notice of the authorities that the route from Bijnor to Noorpur is notified one and no permit could be granted on this route. (177-E) 2. Once it is nationalized route, there is prohibition to permit any private vehicle to ply except by amending the scheme. It is the mandate E of the law and that cannot be ignored. More so, at the time when this order was passed by the High Court the route from Muzaffarnagar to Bijnore via Jansath, Meerapur and Dewal stood notified on September 3, 1994. Regrettably the High Court has overlooked this aspect of the matter and proceeded t~ decide the matter on the assumption that the effect of this F Notification dated September 3, 1994 has already been taken into consideration. [177-F-G) 3.1. It is true that when resolution was passed on June 14-15, 1993 the notification dated September 3, 1994 had not come into operation but once the scheme under notification dated September 3, 1994 came into G operation and the whole route from Muzaffarnagar to Bijnore stood notified and the route from Bijnore to Noorpur was already notified by notification dated February 12, 1951, how can mandamus- ~e issued by the High Court directing the authorities to grant permits to the 38 operators~ This Court by its order dated July 21, 1995 while remanding the matter did not go into all these questions. This Court only remanded H 168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200S] 3 S.C.R. A th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.