Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India addressed a batch of writ petitions and civil appeals concerning the right of private operators to ply on notified routes in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners, led by Smt. Afsar Jahan Begum and others, sought to intersect and operate their vehicles on routes that had been notified under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act 4 of 1939). The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 introduced Chapter VI as a special provision relating to State transport undertakings, with Section 99 providing for preparation and publication of proposals and Section 102 dealing with cancellation or modification of schemes. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Court noticed that the State Government had proposed modification of the approved schemes. By order dated 1.11.1995, the Court directed the State to verify and file an affidavit regarding the necessity of modification and action taken. Pursuant thereto, an additional affidavit was filed by K.K. Tiwari, R.T.O., Indore, stating that the Government by notification dated 21.2.1991 relaxed only the distance of 25 kms on nationalised routes to private operators under certain conditions and restrictions. The notification specified that private operators may be permitted to ply stage carriages for hire or reward subject to conditions: the limit of exemption on notified route shall not exceed 25 kilometers; the private operators shall ply over distance other than notified route which shall not be less than twice the distance of the notified route covered by the permit; the exemption shall apply to all schemes even if implemented after 1979; and private operators shall not pick up or set down passengers on the notified route. The petitioners contended that in view of this relaxation, all of them were entitled to ply in terms thereof. The Court, however, referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Adarsh Travels Bus Service vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (1985) 4 SCC 557, which held that once a scheme is published under Section 68-D of the 1939 Act, no person other than the State Transport Undertaking may operate on the notified area or route except as provided in the scheme itself. The Court observed that the only relaxation from the frozen notified route or area is as provided in the scheme itself, and any operator intersecting the notified route must strictly conform to the restrictive corridor shelter. The relaxation is not meant to sabotage the approved scheme but to subserve public interest. The Court held that the petitioners could not be given any relief beyond the terms of the modified scheme, and if they had any right under the modified scheme, the matter should be gone into by the RTA or STA after due notice to the State Transport Undertaking and all interested persons. Accordingly, the writ petitions and the appeal were dismissed with no costs.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Law - Modification of Approved Schemes - State Government's Power under Section 102(2) - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 102(2) - The State Government modified approved schemes by notification dated 21.2.1991 to allow private operators to ply up to 25 km on notified routes subject to conditions, including no picking up or setting down passengers on notified route. The Court held that such modification is permissible only in public interest and after hearing affected parties. The relaxation is limited and must subserve public interest, not sabotage the scheme (Paras Not mentioned). B) Motor Vehicles Law - Nationalised Routes and Private Operators - Extent of Permissible Operation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Sections 68-C, 68-D(3), 68-FF, 2(28-A); Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 102(2) - Once a scheme is published under Section 68-D, no private operator can operate on any part or portion of a notified route unless authorised by the scheme itself. The relaxation up to 25 km is a corridor shelter, and operators must ply strictly within that corridor without picking up or setting down passengers on the notified route. The Court held that petitioners cannot claim any benefit beyond the modified scheme's terms (Paras Not mentioned). C) Motor Vehicles Law - Precedent on Notified Routes - Interpretation of Scheme Exclusivity - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Sections 68-C, 68-D(3), 68-FF, 2(28-A) - The Court relied on Adarsh Travels Bus Service vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (1985) 4 SCC 557, which held that a notified route is exclusively reserved for the State Transport Undertaking, and no private operator can operate on any part of it unless the scheme itself permits. The Court reiterated that the mere fact that a permit originally covered the notified route does not authorise operation (Paras Not mentioned). D) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction and Alternative Remedy - Exhaustion of Statutory Remedy - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 102(2) - The Court held that writ petitions cannot be used to grant relief beyond the modified scheme. If petitioners claim any right under the modified scheme, they must approach the RTA or STA after due notice to the State Transport Undertaking and other interested persons. Accordingly, writ petitions and appeals were dismissed with no costs (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether private operators/petitioners are entitled to ply on notified routes or intersecting portions beyond the 25 km relaxation provided in modified scheme under Section 102(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; and whether writ jurisdiction can grant relief when statutory remedy before RTA/STA is available
Final Decision
Writ petitions and appeals dismissed; no costs. Petitioners cannot be given any relief; if they have any right under the modified scheme, they may approach RTA/STA after notice to State Transport Undertaking and others.
Law Points
- Once a scheme is published under Section 68-D of Motor Vehicles Act
- 1939
- no private operator can operate on notified area or route except as provided in scheme itself
- private operator cannot operate on any part of notified route on mere ground that permit originally granted covered it
- relaxation under Section 102(2) of Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988 must be strictly in conformity with restrictive corridor shelter
- relaxation is not meant to sabotage approved scheme but to subserve public interest
- if operator claims right under modified scheme
- remedy lies before RTA or STA after notice to State Transport Undertaking and interested persons
