Vikram Shitole & Anr. Vs. The M.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.811 of 1986
Petitioner: Vikram Shitole & Anr.
Respondent: The M.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.811 of 1986
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 20, 1996
Appearances:
M.N. Krishnamani, Senior Advocate, Mr. Pravir Choudhary, Advocates with him for the Appellants.
Mr. Rajinder Narain & Co. (NP), for the Respondents.
Head Note:
MOTOR VEHICLES
Motor Vehicles Act 1988
Section 68 (1) (3) – Operation of state carriages by unemployed graduates – Held once notification under Section 68D is published all pre-existing operators cease to operate on the frozen routes except in accordance with the scheme -In view of State Road Transport Corporation having exclusive right, the self employment scheme is obviously illegal – Scheme is obviously illegal – No private operator is entitled to ply stage carriage – No interference in order of High Court.
Held:
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 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 STA/RTA to grant temporary permit until the S.R.T.C. obtains regular permits. In this case, admittedly, the State Road Transport Corporation had the permits obtained and that, therefore, under the notified scheme no one except the State Road Transport Corporation shall exclusively ply the stage carriages on the notified route in terms of the scheme itself. The self-employment scheme therefore, is obviously illegal.
…Thus, it would be seen that in a notified frozen route no private operator is entitled 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. (Para 3 & 4)
Cases Reffered:
1. Brij Mohan Parihar etc. v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. etc. JT 1986 SC 935 = (1987) 1 SCC 13 (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. 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.
2. 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 68D(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 conditions 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 leave.
3. 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 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 STA/RTA to grant temporary permit until the S.R.T.C. obtains regular permits. In this case, admittedly, the State Road Transport Corporation had the permits obtained and that, therefore, under the notified scheme no one except the State Road Transport Corporation shall exclusively 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. (JT 1986 SC 935 = (1987) 1 SCC 13) considered this aspect of the matter and in paragraph 3 of the judgment it was held that it is not, 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 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.
4. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
1. 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.
2. 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 68D(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 conditions 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 leave.
3. 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 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 STA/RTA to grant temporary permit until the S.R.T.C. obtains regular permits. In this case, admittedly, the State Road Transport Corporation had the permits obtained and that, therefore, under the notified scheme no one except the State Road Transport Corporation shall exclusively 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. (JT 1986 SC 935 = (1987) 1 SCC 13) considered this aspect of the matter and in paragraph 3 of the judgment it was held that it is not, 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 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.
4. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
