Case: Hindustan Transport Company and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

The Path of nationalisation of Motor Bus transport can hardly be said to have been smooth in the State of Uttar Pradesh, The cases now before us illustrate this point. To take an example, the route Lucknow to Kanpur was notified under the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Act of 1931. The effect of the Notification was to totally exclude private operators from plying their State Carriages on the whole or any part of the route, Lucknow to Kanpur. But the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 2 of 1951 and the Notification were struck down by this Court in Saghir Ahmed v. State of U. P. AIR 1954 SC 728. However, the Uttar Pradesh Legislature enacted Uttar Pradesh Act No. 9 of 1955, by Sections 19 and 20 of which the Notifications issued under the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 2 of 1951 were revalidated with effect from June 18, 1951. Hindustan Transport Company and Smt. Chunni Devi the petitioners in writ petitions Nos. 76 and 77 of 1979 held permits to ply State Carriages between Hardoi and Unnao. Unnao is a station between Lucknow and Kanpur. In 1972, the petitioners obtained an extension of their permits enabling them to run their State Carriages on the routesubject to what are known as "Corridor Restrictions", that is, that the vehicles would not pick up or set down any passengers between Unnao and Kanpur, which was a sector of the nationalised route,It is not known how despite the total exclusion of private operators from plying any Stage Carriage on the whole or any sector of the routethe extension of the route Unnao to Kanpur was granted to these two persons. Aggrieved by the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting the extension, the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation filed a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority on April 18, 1973. A writ petition filed by the two operators was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court on February 27, 1978. The operators had earlier obtained a stay of the operation of the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and were continuing to ply their vehicles on the sectoralso. They preferred an appeal (CA Nos.of 1978) to this court and obtained a similar stay.Thereafter the two petitioners moved the competent authority under Section 5 of the U. P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 and on November 17, 1978 their applications were rejected by the competent Authority. The reason given by the competent authority was that the sectorcould not be termed a "corridor" in the sense in which the expression was used in Section 5 of the U. P. Act No. 27 of 1976 since there was no. natural or inevitable overlapping of the two routes.

Reasoning:
We do not have any doubt that Shri Ranas submission is correct. Section 5 of the U. P. Act No. 27 of 1976 was obviously enacted to give relief to existing transport operators holding permits on portion of notified route on the dates of the notifications. Obviously, again the provision did not and could not contemplate any transport operator obtaining a permit over the whole or a part of the notified route subsequent to the date of the notification. Shri Garg submitted that in Civil Appeals Nos.of 1978, this Court had come to the conclusion that the petitioners were operators, who were entitled to be considered for the grant of authorisation under Section 5 of the U. P. Act No. 27 of 1976. We are unable to read the earlier order of this court in that manner. All that was said was that the petitioners who currently hold permits were entitled to move the competent authority under Section 5 of the Act. It did not mean that the Court decided that they were entitled to be considered for the grant of authorization even if they did not fulfil the requirement of Section 5. As we said, Section 5 enables the competent authority to grant authorisation to existing transport operators holding permits over the whole or part of a notified route on the date of the notification. The petitioners did not hold permits over the sectoron the date of the notification. They are therefore, not entitled to the grant of authorisation under Section 5 of the Act. Shri Garg also attempted to urge that the routewas not the same as the routeand therefore, notwithstanding the nationalisation of theroute, vehicles could nevertheless be permitted to ply on theroute. The argument has only to be stated to be rejected. The very basis of an application under Section 5 is that without an authorisation the operators may not ply their vehicles on the nationalised portions of the routes over which they hold permits. Writ petitions Nos.of 1979 have, therefore, to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed with costs.