U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus ASSISTANT COMNR. OF POLICE (TRAFFIC) DELHI

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 234 · Decided: 12-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 234 
A 
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
-~ 
V. 
ASSISTANT COMNR. OF POLICE (TRAFFIC) DELHI 
Civil Appeal No. 950 Of 2009 
B 
FEBRUARY 12, 2009 
(S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, J) 
Constitution Of India, 1950: 
Articles 32 and 142 - Directions by Supreme Court re-
-\ ..., 
c garding observance of norms of safety on roads - lnterpreta-
tion of - HELD : the directions issued in exercise of powers 
\..
under Article 32 rlw Article 142 must be held to be in addition 
to the conditions contained in the permit and/or the provisions 
of Motor Vehicles Act and should be construed strictly - The 
D Court did not confer any authority upon a person who did not 
have any such authority under the statute - Inter-State per-
,._, 
mits granted pursuant to agreement between two States, can, 
in the event of violation of any norms, ·be suspended/cancelled 
only by the authority which granted the same and not by the 
E counter-signing State - Orders impugned in writ petition stand 
quashed - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 86, 88 and 207. 
Article 136 - Dismissal of petition for special leave by 
an unreasoned order - Held : Does not create any precedent 
l· 
- Precedent. 
F 
The respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Police, 
Delhi ordered suspension of the permit of a bus of the 
appellant, UP State Road Transport Corporation for a pe-
riod of seven days from the date of deposit of the vehicle 
for purported violation of the directions of the Supreme 
G Court issued on 20.11.1979
1 with regard to observance 
of norm of safety on road within NCR and NCTT, Delhi .. 
'y 
The writ petition of the appellant-Corporation was dis-
1 M. C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. ( 1997) 8 SCC 770 
H 
234 
~ 
; , 
-1 -
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION V. 235 
ASS. COMNR. OF POLICE (TRAFFIC) DELHI 
missed by the High Court. The special appeal was also 
dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court tak-
ing note that in an identical matter the special leave peti-
tion had been dismissed by the Supreme Court. 
In the instant appeals, it was contended for the ap-
pellant Corporation that in view of the provisions of s.86 
of the Act, the respondent not being the appropriate State 
Transport Authority could not have directed impounding 
of the bus and/or suspension of the permit. The stand of 
the respondents was that the order of suspending the per-
mit was passed in compliance of the order of the Supreme 
Court, and that the Court having dismissed the special 
leave petition, and the letters patent appeal having been 
filed thereafter the instant appeal was not maintainable. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Right to ply a vehicle in terms of the provi-
sions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Rules framed 
thereunder is a statutory right. Where a person, including 
a juristic person, is conferred a right to carry on business, 
regulation thereof should ordinarily be governed by the 
statute under which the permit has been granted. In view 
of several decisions of this Court, even if additional regu-
latory measures are laid down, the same, should be con-
strued strictly. [Para 17] [248-8, C] 
Vishaka & Ors. V State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1997) 6 
sec 241 -referred to 
1.2 The directions issued by this Court in exercise of 
its jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the 
Constitution of India must be held to be in addition to the 
conditions contained in the permit and/or the provisions 
of the Act. The direction issued by tius Court upon the 
authorities to ensure that the transport vehicles are not 
permitted to overtake any four wheels motorized vehicle 
was issued as in the view of this Court, the scheme of the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
236 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A Act necessarily Implied an obligation to use the vehicle in 
a manner which does not imperil public safety. Clause (e) of 
the order must be construed in the light of the purpose and 
object for which the Act was enacted. [Para 19] [248-D, E, F] 
1.3 The direction that any breach will be considered 
B to be in contravention of the conditions of the permit 
which could entail suspension/cancellation of the permit 
. and impounding of the vehicle must be read in the light of 
the provisions of the Act and not de hors the same. This 
Court could not and, in fact, did not while issuing the said 
--\ 
~ 
c dfrection confer a statutory authority upon a person who 
did not have any such authority under the statute. An or-
der
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.