Case: U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sandeep Kumar Jain

Allahabad High Court mentioned supra in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition no. 48624 of 2002 and the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7305-7306 of 2003 inasmuch as the very route in question that were Dewal-Bijnor was a subject matter.11. It is well settled law and it is reiterated by this Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Omaditya Verma and Ors., 2005 (4) SCC 424 that the private operators cannot be permitted to ply the vehicles on notified/nationalized route unless permitted by the Scheme. The High Court while passing the impugned judgment had not properly appreciated the impact of the judgment of this Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Omaditya Verma and Ors., 2005 9 (4) SCC 424. After construction of Ganga Barrage in the year 1985; after diversion of both the routes i.e. Muzaffarnagar-Bijnore and Meerut-Bijnore, the common strip from Dewal to Bijnore i.e. for a portion of 11 km. is being used. As the route has become a notified route pursuant to the Nationalization Scheme dated 05.11.1997, and since it is a settled principle of law that no private operators can be permitted to operate/ply vehicles on the notified route except as permitted by the Scheme, the respondents cannot be permitted to ply the vehicles on the notified route.12. It would also be relevant to note the conclusions reached by the Constitution bench in the Case of G. T. Venkataswamy Reddy vs State Transport Authority & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 402 which are as under:“Having analysed the above referred to decisions and the statutory provisions, before rendering our final answer to the question referred to this Constitution Bench, it will be worthwhile to make a reference and list out the legal propositions which we are able to discern based on our detailed consideration in this reference:(a) Chapter IV-A supersedes any inconsistent provisions in Chapter IV.(b) The policy of the Legislature is clear from Section 68-C that the State Transport Undertaking may initiate a scheme for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service to be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking in relation to any area or route or portion thereof. It may do so if it is necessary in the public interest.(c) Grant of variation under Section 57(8) will be as good as grant of a new permit.(d) Section 57(8) is controlled by Section 68FF falling under Chapter IV-A, by virtue of the superseding effect of Section 68-B also falling under Chapter IVA.(e) Once a scheme formulated under Section 68-D gets approved under 68-D(3) of Chapter IV-A, then all the permits in the route / area covered by the scheme will get frozen by virtue of operation of Section 68-FF.(f) The effect of Section 68-FF can be altered / modified / cancelled only in the manner as provided for under Section 68-E and in no other manner.(g) By virtue of the above, either a grant of a new permit or the variation of an existing permit of private operator cannot be ordered in respect of an area or route covered by an Approved Scheme.(h) Increase in the number of trips or vehicles which were being run under the existing exempted permit under a Scheme will amount to grant of a new permit to operate one more Stage Carriage which is not permissible under Section 68-FF.(i) The proposition of law, laid down by this Court in ‘JAYARAM’ impliedly stood overruled in ‘ADARSH TRAVELS’.(j) The economy and coordination, two of the factors, which govern the Approved Scheme, will be seriously infringed if the variation is to be granted of the existing permit condition.(k) Even if there is an interstate agreement under Section 63 of the Act for increasing the number of trips, such an agreement cannot override the provisions of Chapter IV-A by virtue of Section 68B of the Act. Section 63 being in Chapter IV of the Act, the Scheme approved under Chapter IV-A will prevail over it.(l) The Approved Scheme will exclude the operation of other stage carriage services on the Route / Area covered by the Scheme, except those whose names are mentioned in the Scheme and to the extent to which such exception is allowed.(m) The provisions in Chapter IV-A are devised to override the provisions of Chapter IV and it is expressly so enacted, the provisions of Chapter IV-A are clear and complete regarding the manner and effect of the “takeover” of the operation of a road transport service by the State Transport Undertaking in relation to any Area or Route or portion thereof (ADARSH TRAVELS).(n) A necessary consequence of those provisions is that no private operator can operate his vehicle on any part or portion of a notified area or notified route unless authorized so to do by the term of the scheme itself. He may not operate on any part or portion of the notified Route or Area on the mere ground that the permit as originally granted to him covered the notified Route or Area (ADARSH TRAVELS).Having regard to the above propositions, which we are able to arrive at, we hold that the judgment reported in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. B.A. Jayaram and others - 1984 (Supp) SCC 244 is no longer a good law and the decision reported in Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. M.A. Egappan - (1987) 2 SCC 47 stands approved which is in tune with the Constitution Bench decision reported in Adarsh Travels Bus Service and another Vs. State of U.P. and others - (1985) 4 SCC 557 and the observations made in R.Raghuram Vs. P. Jayarama Naidu and others – 1990 (supp) SCC 361 stands approved.”Aforementioned conclusions are applicable to the facts of this case. The Constitution bench while coming to the aforementioned conclusions has considered various judgments on the point including in the case of Adarsh Travels Bus Service vs State of U.P. and Others (1985) 4 SCC 557 (Constitution Bench Judgment) etc.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The Regional Transport Authority had rightly cancelled the permits issued on the ground that the route Dewal to Bijnore is a notified route.10. The Allahabad High Court in the aforementioned judgment in detail on facts had dealt with as to how the private operators were not entitled to ply their vehicles on the notified route i.e. 11h lying betweenDewal to Bijnor. Though the respondents herein were existing operators they cannot be shown leniency in view of the fact that the route over which they were plying earlier did not include Dewal to Bijnor. Since they have now been plying the vehicles on the notified routethey cannot be permitted to do so. Though the judgment of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court mentioned supra is confirmed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.of 2003 on different grounds, the fact remains that the judgment of the Allahabad High Court stood confirmed. Hence, in our opinion, the State Transport Authority is justified in relying upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court mentioned supra in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition no. 48624 of 2002 and the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.of 2003 inasmuch as the very route in question that werewas a subject matter.11. It is well settled law and it is reiterated by this Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Omaditya Verma and Ors., 2005 (4) SCC 424     that the private operators cannot be permitted to ply the vehicles on notified/nationalized route unless permitted by the Scheme. The High Court while passing the impugned judgment had not properly appreciated the impact of the judgment of this Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Omaditya Verma and Ors., 2005 9 (4) SCC 424. After construction of Ganga Barrage in the year 1985; after diversion of both the routes i.e.e, the common strip from Dewal to Bijnore i.e. for a portion of 11 km. is being used. As the route has become a notified route pursuant to the Nationalization Scheme dated 05.11.1997, and since it is a settled principle of law that no private operators can be permitted to operate/ply vehicles on the notified route except as permitted by the Scheme, the respondents cannot be permitted to ply the vehicles on the notifiedconclusions are applicable to the facts of this case. The Constitution bench while coming to the aforementioned conclusions has considered various judgments on the point including in the case of Adarsh Travels Bus Service vs State of U.P. and Others (1985) 4 SCC 557 (Constitution Bench Judgment) etc.