'-
, .
VIKRAM SHITOLE AND ANR.
A
v.
THE M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION AND ORS.
DECEMBER 11, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.]
Motor Veh!cles Act, 1939 : Section 68D(3).
Notified Route-Approved route published u11der Sectio11 68D(3 }-Sub- c
seque11tly "Self Employmellt Sd1eme" framed-{]11der the scheme u11employed
graduates permitted to operate stage carriages on notified route subject to
temis a11d conditions-Appellant's pem1it cancelled as he did not comply with
temis and conditio11s-Writ-Dismissal by High Court-Appeal-Held in a
notified frozen route no pri.vate operator is entitled to ply the stage carriage-In D
this case, the State Road Transport Corporation had the pennits ob-
tained-Therefore, under the notified scheme no one except it shall exclusively
ply the stage carriages on· the notified route in tenns of the scheme itself-The
self-employment scheme fherefore, is obviously illegal-Dismissal of writ
petition by High Court was not vitiated by any error of law.
E
Brij Mohan Parihar Etc. v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation &:
Ors. Etc. [1987] 1 SCC 13, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 811 of
1986.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.1.86 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Misc. P.No. 572 of 1985.
M.N. Krishoamani and Pravir Choudhary for the Appellants.
Rajinder Narain & Co. (NP) for the Respondents.
G
)
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench in Miscellaneous Petition No. 572 of
1985 dated January 13, 1986.
H
961
A
B
962
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
The admitted position is that the route in question, i.e., Gwalior to
Indore, was notified under Chapter IV-A of Motor Vehicles Act ("Act 4
of 1939", for short) which has been repealed and re-enacted by Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988). After the approved route was published under Section
680(3), a scheme was framed under which unemployed graduates were
permitted under "self- employment scheme" to operate the stage carriages
on the notified route subject to certain terms and conditions. It would
appear that the appellants did not comply with the said terms and condi-
tions as a result of which their permits were cancelled by the authorities.
Calling the action in question the appellants filed .a writ petition. The High
Court has dismissed the said writ petition. Thus, this appeal by special
C leave.
The controversy is no longer res integra. It is settled legal position
that once notification under sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act is
published in the Gazette, all the pre-existing operators shall cease to
operate on the frozen routes except in accordance with the terms and
D conditions mentioned in the scheme itself which is law by itself. If the State
Road Transport Corporation fails to obtain permit, power has been
granted to STNRTA to grant temporary permit until S.R.T.C. obtains
regular permits. In this case, admittedly, the State Road Transport Cor-
poration had the permits obtained and that, therefore, under the notified
scheme no one except the State .Road Transport Corporation shall ex-
E elusively ply the stage carriages on the notified route in terms of the scheme
itself. The self-employment scheme therefore, is obviously illegal. This
court in the case of Brij Mohan Parihar Etc. v. M.P. State Road Transport
Corporation & Ors. Etc. [1987] 1 sec 13, considered this aspect of the
matter and in paragraph 3 of the judgment it was held that it is not,
F however, permissible under the Act for the Corporation to obtain a permit
under Chapter IV-A of the Act and to allow a private operator as its
nominee to operate under that permit his motor vehicle as a stage carriage
on the notified route. It cannot be granted permission to collect any money
either as nomination fees or as royalty or supervision charges. Thus, it
would be seen that in a notified frozen route no private operator is entitled
G to ply the stage carriage. Accordingly, we ·hold that dismissal of the
appellants' writ petition by the High Court is not vitiated by any error of
law warranting interference.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
H T.N.A.
Appeal dismissed.
·'
Lex