U.P. STATE ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPN., LUCKNOW THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER versus ANWAR AHMED AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 98 · Decided: 30-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.P. STATE ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPN., LUCKNOW 
THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER 
v. 
ANWAR AHMED AND ORS. 
B 
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 
C 
Ss. 100 and 104-Grant of pennit in respect of notified area/route--
Scheme in respect of two nationalised routes notified-Private operators 
seeki11g temporwy pennits for a 11ew route carved out by fusi11g two notified 
routes--Held, 110 11ew route can be introduced by fusi11g two 11otified routes 
and temporary pennits can11ot be obtailled 011 the carved out route-This 
D device is impennissible to ellter i11to froze11 area or route or portion thereof 
through back door-The scheme is law by itself a11d u11til it is varied according 
to law no private operator has any right to camouflage a11y device to obtai11 
temporary pemiit!r'-Actio11 taken by the respo11dents to obtai11 temporary 
pennits is ultra vires and authorities have 110 jurisdiction to grant such 
pe1mit!r'-Altered or modified routes are contrary to the approved scheme since 
E they have been occupied by two notified routes-011ce the scheme has been 
approved and 11otified, the appellant-Corporation has the exclusive right or 
monopoly to ply its stage carriages and obtain required pennits as per the 
scheme-And right to ply stage carriages by private operators in notified area, 
route or portio11 thereof is totally frozen-They have no right to claim any 
F grant of stage carriage, temporary or colltract carriage pennits thereunder on 
the notified area, routes or portio11s thereof except to the exte11t saved by the 
scheme with restrictiollS imposed thereunder-The proviso to s.104 is limited 
only to the exte11t that until the Corporation plies its vehicles on the notified 
routes as per the scheme, temporary pennits may be granted to private 
G operators i11 order to avert inconvenience to travelling public----Pennits were 
obtained by appellant-Corporation and vehicles were plied on the routes in 
tenns of the scheme-Directions given by the High Court in favour of the 
private operators is illegal. 
-~
Ram Krishna Vernia & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1992] 2 SCC 620, 
H referred to. 
98 
U.P.STATEROADWAYSTPT.CORPN.1'. ANWAR AHMAD 
99 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 13119-28 A 
of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.6.96 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. No. 1538 of 1995. 
V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, Raju Ramachandran, B 
Pradip Misra and T. Mahipal for the Appellants. 
H.N. Salve, Ms. Rani Chabra and Ms. Rachna Srivastva for the 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
This case has a chequered history of its own. For over three decades, 
the scheme was not allowed to be finalised, but ultimately by the judgment 
of this Court in Ram Krishna Vernia & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1992] 
2 SCC 620, the scheme was finalised and published in the Gazette. Two 
unsuccessful attempts were made subsequently to reopen the issue and 
thwart the scheme but remained unsuccessful. This is a third occasion. This 
time a device was employed to carve out a route from two nationalised 
routes, viz., Bulandshaher to Delhi and Shahdara to Saharanpur. They are 
now sought to be interjected with temporary permits to be obtained on the 
carved out route Ghaziabad to Saharanpur. Thereby, they sought to 
entrench upon frozen field through back-door process of forcing the 
appeJlant to obtain aJI permits as per the scheme, lest the temporary 
permits should be given to them by the. State Transport Authority or 
Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
The High Court of Allahabad by order dated June 2, 1995 directed 
the Regional Transport Authority to consider the grant of temporary 
»'-;JD>· 
permits for the Ghaziabad to Saharanpur route and, in the meanwhile, 
liberty was given to the appeJlant-Corporation to lift the permit granted for 
the route. Proceedings were taken out by the Corporation before the State 
Transport Authority to grant permit which necessitated filing of the writ H 
100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A petition. By the impugned order dated November 17, 1995 of the High 
Cour.t in the contempt proceedings and also orders dated January 10, 1996 
and January 16, 1996, temporary permits were directed to be taken by the 
respondents. Thus, these appeals by special leave. 
B 
I

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