Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned attempts by private operators to obtain temporary permits on a route formed by fusing two nationalised routes under a scheme approved under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant, U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation, held exclusive rights to operate on notified routes under the scheme. For over three decades, the scheme had not been finalised, but ultimately the Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Verma vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [(1992) 2 SCC 620] finalised and published it in the Gazette. Two earlier attempts to reopen or thwart the scheme were unsuccessful. The respondents made a third attempt by carving out a new route, Ghaziabad to Saharanpur, from two notified routes, Bulandshaher to Delhi and Shahdara to Saharanpur, and sought temporary permits on this carved-out route. The High Court of Allahabad, by order dated June 2, 1995, directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider granting temporary permits for the Ghaziabad to Saharanpur route and gave liberty to the appellant to lift permits. Subsequently, in contempt proceedings and by orders dated November 17, 1995, January 10, 1996 and January 16, 1996, the High Court directed that temporary permits be taken by the respondents. The appellant challenged these directions before the Supreme Court. The core legal issues were whether private operators had any right to temporary permits on notified routes after approval of a scheme, whether the proviso to Section 104 permitted such permits on a route carved out from two notified routes, and whether the High Court's directions were legal. The respondents relied on the proviso to Section 104, arguing that because no application for permit had been made by the State transport undertaking, temporary permits could be granted to avoid inconvenience to the travelling public. The appellant contended that once a scheme is approved and notified, private operators' rights are totally frozen, and since the appellant had taken permits and put vehicles on the route, the proviso was inapplicable. The Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal position that once a scheme is approved and notified under Section 100(3), private operators have no right to ply stage carriages on notified areas, routes or portions thereof except as saved by the scheme. Section 104 prohibits grant of any permit except in accordance with the scheme. The proviso gives only a limited breath of life: temporary permits may be granted to private operators only until the State transport undertaking puts vehicles on the notified route as per the scheme, to avert temporary inconvenience. Since the appellant had taken permits and vehicles were on the route, the proviso did not apply. The Court held that fusing two notified routes to create a new route is an impermissible back-door device to enter the frozen area. The approved scheme is law until varied according to law, and no private operator can camouflage any device to obtain temporary permits. The action of the respondents to obtain temporary permits was therefore ultra vires, and the authorities had no jurisdiction to grant such permits. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals without costs, setting aside the High Court's directions and upholding the appellant's exclusive right under the approved scheme.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles - Notified Routes and Schemes - Freezing of Private Operators' Rights - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 100 and 104 - Once a scheme is approved and notified under Section 100(3), private operators have no right to ply stage carriages on notified area, routes or portions thereof except as saved by the scheme. The Supreme Court reiterated that the right of private operators is totally frozen and they cannot claim grant of stage carriage, temporary or contract carriage permits on notified routes. Held that any attempt by private operators to obtain temporary permits on such routes is impermissible. (Paras not mentioned) B) Motor Vehicles - Temporary Permits - Scope of Proviso to Section 104 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 104 proviso - The proviso permits temporary permits to private operators only where no application for permit has been made by the State transport undertaking and only until the undertaking puts vehicles on the notified route as per the scheme. The court held that this is a limited breath of life to avert temporary inconvenience to travelling public, not a gateway for private operators to enter frozen notified areas. Since the appellant had taken permits and put vehicles on the route, the proviso had no application. (Paras not mentioned) C) Motor Vehicles - Carved-Out Route from Two Notified Routes - Impermissible Device - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 100 and 104 - Respondents attempted to introduce a new route by fusing two nationalised routes (Bulandshaher to Delhi and Shahdara to Saharanpur) to obtain temporary permits on Ghaziabad to Saharanpur route. The court held that altering or modifying routes contrary to the approved scheme by fusing two notified routes is a back-door entry into frozen area and ultra vires; authorities have no jurisdiction to grant such permits. The approved scheme is law until varied according to law. (Paras not mentioned) D) Constitutional/Administrative Law - Judicial Review of High Court Directions - Contempt Proceedings - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 100 and 104 - High Court directions in contempt proceedings to grant temporary permits were contrary to settled legal position and hence illegal. Supreme Court allowed appeals and set aside those directions. (Paras not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether private operators have any right to claim temporary permits on notified area, routes or portions thereof after an approved scheme is published under Section 100(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; whether the proviso to Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 permits grant of temporary permits to private operators on a carved-out route fusing two notified routes when the State transport undertaking has obtained permits and put vehicles on the route; whether the High Court's directions in contempt proceedings to grant temporary permits were legal and within jurisdiction.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed without costs. The Supreme Court held that grant of temporary permits to respondents on the carved-out Ghaziabad to Saharanpur route was ultra vires and contrary to the approved scheme. Directions of High Court were set aside. Private operators have no right to obtain temporary permits on notified routes where appellant has taken permits and put vehicles as per scheme.
Law Points
- Once an approved scheme is notified under Section 100(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- the right of private operators to ply stage carriages on notified areas
- routes or portions thereof is totally frozen
- private operators have no right to claim grant of stage carriage
- temporary or contract carriage permits on such notified routes except to the extent saved by the scheme
- the proviso to Section 104 gives only a limited breath of life
- permitting temporary permits to private operators only until the State transport undertaking obtains permits and puts vehicles on the notified route as per the scheme
- the proviso cannot be used to create a new route by fusing two notified routes and enter the frozen field through back-door
- the approved scheme is law by itself until varied according to law
- any action to obtain temporary permits contrary to the approved scheme is ultra vires and authorities have no jurisdiction to grant such permits.
