U.P.State Road Transport Corp vs Mohd.Ghilman Sharif & Ors

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. W.P. 2 No.47949 of 2008 filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, inter alia, for the issuance of a Writ in the nature Mandamus upon the Transport Department of the State of U.P. and its authorities to allow the writ petitioners/Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, to ply their vehicles against subsisting permits on the route between Muzaffarnagar-Rohana- Deoband-Nagal-Saharanpur and allied routes. By the said order, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the State Transport Authority to decide as to whether the permit of the Respondent No.1 was subsisting and if the same was found to be subsisting the respondents would not be prevented from plying their vehicles on the route in question. The matter was to be decided by a speaking order.

3. The facts in brief indicate that the Respondent No.1 Mohd. Gilman Sharif and Mohd. Ruman Sharif, claimed to be joint permit holders in respect of the aforesaid route. The second petitioner, Vinod Kumar, claims to have had a permit in respect of the said route which had expired and his application for renewal of the same is said to be pending.

5. On 29.5.1993 a Notification was published under Section 100(3) of the 1988 Act 5 finalizing the Scheme of nationalization with exclusive right of operation to the appellant Corporation and total exclusion of private operators. The said Notification was again challenged in several writ petitions which were dismissed by the High Court on 19.11.1999. The various Special Leave Petitions which were filed against such dismissal order were allowed by this Court on 1.5.2001 and the matter was remanded to the Hearing Authority to consider the objections which had been filed by the private operators and which were under consideration when the impugned Notification dated 29.5.1993 had been issued. The Hearing Authority by its order dated 2.11.2001 allowed the existing operators, such as the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to ply on the routes in question along with the Corporation.

7. While Writ Petition No. 9332 of 2002 was still to be heard, the applications for renewal of the permits of the private operators came up for consideration before the State Transport Authority which by its order dated 9.6.2005 declined to renew the permits on account of the pendency of the said Writ Petition before 7 the High Court. Against such refusal, revision petitions were filed before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which directed the permits to be renewed subject to the fate of Writ Petition 9332 of 2002. Consequently, on 20.1.2006 the permits were renewed subject to the said condition.

9. While the Special Leave Petition against the order of the High Court dated 1.6.2007 allowing Writ Petition No.9332 of 2002 was 8 pending hearing, the State Transport Authority on 26.6.2007 prevented the private operators from operating on the routes in question. After the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 16.7.2007 the Government took a decision on 9.8.2007 to allow private operators to operate on the routes in question along with the appellant Corporation. On 28.3.2008 the State Government issued a final Notification allowing private operators to operate on the notified route in question along with the appellant-Corporation. The said Notification dated 28.3.2008 was challenged by the U.P. Roadways Karamchari Union in W.P. No.398 of 2008 and the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court by its order dated 7.5.2008, restrained the authority from issuing permits on the notified routes. The private respondents also filed W.P. No.47949 of 2008 in the High Court for a direction upon the 9 respondent Authority to allow them to ply on the routes in question on the strength of the permits held by them as no action had been taken either under the Scheme or in terms of Section 103 of the 1988 Act or even under Sections 104 and 105 thereof. The said Writ Petition No.47949 of 2008 was allowed by the High Court on 14.11.2008 and the State Transport Authority was directed to consider the applications filed by the respondents in the light of the Notification dated 28.3.2008 by which private operators had been permitted to operate on the routes in question along with the appellant-Corporation.

8. On 1.6.2007 the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the orders passed by the Hearing Authority holding that permit holders who were granted permits prior to 1986 were entitled to get compensation according to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Special Leave Petitions filed against the said order were dismissed by this Court on 16.7.2007.

15. We are afraid, we are unable to agree with Mr. Ranjit Kumar on the question of further hearing to be given to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on their claim to be allowed to operate on the notified routes in question on the basis of the permits which according to the said respondents were dormant and were capable of being reviewed in the existing circumstances.

17. In that view of the matter, the present appeal has to be allowed. The directions given by the High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47949 of 2008 are hereby set aside and the prayer made by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein for being given a hearing to establish their claims is also refused. This will not, however, prevent the said respondents from claiming compensation under Section 105 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

18. The appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms.

19. There will, however, be no order as to costs. CIVIL APPEAL NOs. ________ OF 2009 (@ S.L.P.(C)Nos.520 of 2009 and 783 of 2009)

20. In view of the aforesaid, leave is also granted in these two special leave petitions, which are also allowed and disposed of accordingly.

______________J.

(ALTAMAS KABIR) ______________J.

(CYRIAC JOSEPH) New Delhi Dated: 20.07.2009