LexU.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER versus KASHMIRI LAL BATRA & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 379 : 2025 INSC 1281 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Chief General Manager v. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 10522 of 2025) 04 November 2025 [Dipankar Datta* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether a stage carriage permit can be granted to a private operator on an inter-State route in terms of an IS-RT Agreement-Inter-State Reciprocal Transport Agreement executed by and between two neighbouring States u/s.88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 when portion of such inter-State route is common to intra-State route which has been notified in terms of a scheme approved per the provisions of Chapter VI of the MV Act. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.88 – Validation of permits for use outside region in which granted – In terms of IS-RT agreement between the State Transport Authority-STA, UP and MP u/s.88, the MPSTA had exclusive right to operate buses on inter-State routes specified in Schedule B of the IS-RT Agreement and Schedule A earmarked routes exclusively for plying of stage carriages by private operators – Allegedly MPSRTC had been wound up and, thus, it stopped plying buses on these routes which came to be de-notified – Private operators claimed that routes specified in Schedule B be converted and included in Schedule A so that they could be selected and issued permits to ply stage carriages on the routes mentioned in Schedule A – To operate stage carriages on the routes mentioned in Schedule B, which stood de- notified, the private operators applied for and were granted temporary permits by the STA, MP, however, the STA, UP refused to counter-sign these permits – Writ petition by the aggrieved seeking mandamus to the STA, UP to grant counter * Author 380 [2025] 11 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports signature on the permits issued by the STA, MP – High Court directed the State of MP to initiate proceedings to grant permanent stage carriage permits for the routes mentioned in Schedule B of the IS-RT Agreement, and to complete the proceedings and thereafter, the State of UP was directed to countersign the permits – Challenge to: Held: Grant of relief to the private operators seems well-nigh impossible unless of course MPSRTC is clearly shown to have been wound up – IS-RT Agreement by its very nature is an agreement between two States but not a law under the relevant MV Act – Approved schemes and notified routes, which are envisaged in Chapter VI, would obviously override s.88, in view of s.98 – Plying of a stage carriage by a private operator on an inter-State route, which happens to overlap a part of a notified intra-State route, should be expressly excluded by incorporating requisite recitals in the IS-RT Agreement, which is subsequent in point of time, because no such agreement can surface in the absence of consensus between two neighbouring States – Once two States hold talks for formulating and opening up routes for plying of stage carriages connecting cities/towns in such States on reciprocal basis and reduce the agreed terms to a written agreement, which is also given wide publicity to remove any possible hurdles, there is a presupposition of various objects and purposes having been factored therein, which undoubtedly have serving public interest at the forefront – If the two reciprocating States fail to notice that the services to be introduced would face road-blocks because certain inter-State routes overlap a few intra-State routes, public interest is rendered a casualty and thereby, the whole object and purpose of the IS-RT Agreement would be frustrated and lost in the process – Apparent lack of application of mind and of purpose by the States of UP and MP noticed which have dented the prospect of maximisation of public interest consequent upon introduction of a few of the inter-State routes overlapping part of routes notified in favour of the UPSRTC – Much was expected of the States of UP and MP as well as the UPRSTC to protect the interest of the passengers and commuters, which unfortunately has not fructified – While no permission can be granted at this stage to any private operator having a permit issued by the STA, MP to ply his vehicle on [2025] 11 S.C.R. 381 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Chief General Manager v. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors. an inter-State route connecting two cities in the neighbouring States, which overlaps any
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.